IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 22 August 2023 08:42 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C699C14CE2C; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 01:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lWqsEAkeNtMw; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 01:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CA63C151065; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 01:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p548dc15c.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.193.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4RVNBm5dxgzDCg2; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 10:42:24 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <169269257169.1146.6134251465161445844@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 10:42:14 +0200
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lake-edhoc@ietf.org, lake-chairs@ietf.org, lake@ietf.org, malisa.vucinic@inria.fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <70BC5E9D-2FDD-4CA1-866D-385FF8D403D7@tzi.org>
References: <169269257169.1146.6134251465161445844@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/iyrY0O2IQfKLj1hwyeq7tFvXPoA>
Subject: [Lake] Standards Action with Expert Review (Re: Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))
X-BeenThere: lake@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange <lake.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lake/>
List-Post: <mailto:lake@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 08:42:34 -0000

Hi Lars,

I’m intrigued by your comment:

On 22. Aug 2023, at 10:22, Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> ### Section 10.2, paragraph 17
> ```
>     | -20 to 23      | Standards Action with Expert Review |
> ```
> Why still Expert Review if this already requires a Standards Action?
> (Same comment for other registry ranges with this policy.)

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.

Based on those experiences, I would always be inclined to add a "with Expert Review” to a Standards Action policy.

Do we now have processes in place that would automatically involve a registry expert in a Standards Action?

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email