Re: [Lake] Standards Action with Expert Review (Re: Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 22. Aug 2023, at 10:49, Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Aug 22, 2023, at 11:42, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I seem to remember that we had IANA registrations made by Standards Action where none of the authors, IESG members, or other reviewers were aware of a specific detail in the registration requirements.
> 
> do you have details?

That was a while ago, so I remember that it happened, but no longer the details.
(And I don’t think there is a convenient search term.)

> Given that it was a Standards Action, I'm surprised if authors and the IESG were not ware of something, given that they author and review the I-D (in addition to a Last Call).

Some registrations are to “foreign” registries that are not that much related to the technology under standardization.
The expert may be aware of some details that really are not common knowledge in the realm of the technology under standardization, and the mere fact that the foreign technology is coming up in a registration may not sufficiently alert the ADs for that technology to possibly get a specific review.

>> Do we now have processes in place that would automatically involve a registry expert in a Standards Action?
> 
> No. The theory was/is that IETF Last Call and IESG Review provide more review than Expert Review does, so it seems redundant. If nat belief is no longer held, we should update the relevant process.

More review, certainly.  But the designated experts probably are uniquely positioned here so this is not just a quantitive issue.

I believe an update would be beneficial.
Until then, "Standards Action with Expert Review” works for me as a workaround.

Grüße, Carsten