Re: IPv6 options defined outside of 6man

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> On 22 Nov 2016, at 09:55, t.petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Chown" <[e-mail]>
> To: "joel jaeggli" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 10:46 AM
>> 
>>> On 21 Nov 2016, at 09:48, joel jaeggli <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>>> <snip>
>> 
>>> Registry policies are established at the creation of the registry
>>> 
>>> in the case of
>>> 
>>> IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats
>>> 
>>> The Registration Procedure is
>>> 
>>> IETF RFC publication
>>> 
>>> for
>>> 
>>> DHCPv6 Option Codes
>>> 
>>> Expert Review and Standards Action
>>> 
>>> Area directors and iana review are expected to hew to requirements
>>> specified in the registries and the doucments which created them.
>>> 
>>> Standards track documents may of course amend the procedures
> associated
>>> with a registry.
>> 
>> So, I guess the question for 6man is whether "Expert Review and
> Standards Action” should also formally be required for new IPv6 Neighbor
> Discovery Option Formats?  Even if it seems to be common practice at the
> moment.  Something to consider when 4861-bis comes up.
> 
> I see 'Expert Review' as something of a political solution to a
> technical problem.  It requires that an expert be found, a backup expert
> when the first is busy, the maintenance of the list of experts over a
> spell of several years when, mostly, the IETF does not have an obvious
> source of expertise (such as a WG).  

Well, the “Expert” is typically a WG. In the case of the capport RA/ND option, a review was requested by an AD on the 6man list. The only thing I think that was missing was a summary of the outcome of the review (it wasn’t posted to the original thread, that I could see). In this case, only one objection was made.

> All of which places a further
> burden on ADs and the IESG, which, naturally, I expect them to resist.

The IESG reviews all I-Ds, but even with many expert eyes, some things can get missed, e.g. the .home issue in homenet.  Some Areas, e.g. Ops and Internet, have a system where the ADs get help from volunteers to provide extra review; a problem there though is not everyone can be “expert" in everything.

> Note too that 'Expert Review' comes just above First-Come First-Served
> in the IANA heirarchy and below anything involving an RFC so the role is
> a relatively weak one, and probably inappropriate for a core protocol.
> And while it is meant to be open, I see it as often being secretive - it
> is there for IANA's benefit, not for that of the IETF.
> 
> If there is a WG, and if the WG is a process rather than project one,
> e.g. TCPM or IDR, then I think that the WG is the better place to go.

I think there are different types of issues that may arise; some may be technical, some may be more architectural, and some may be “religious”. It’s tricky. But I think ensuring there’s a flag waved in (say) 6man for a proposal for a new ND option makes sense; worst case it will delay publication a week or two during the review period, which could always be done in the IETF LC period anyway, I assume.

Tim