[Megaco] Updated H.248 Package Registration Procedures Draft

Hello all,

The draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-01.txt has now been updated.
See: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-01.txt

The main changes have been to clarify that the IESG appoints the Expert 
reviewer and that the documents for review have to be made available to 
the expert reviewer. These changes were in response to comments from one 
of the RAI ADs. If you're interested in the comments see the end of this 
email.

There was some concern from the ADs that as there was little discussion 
on the Megaco Mailing list that there was no consensus on this issue. 
For those with an interest I would encourage you to respond even if its 
"I agree to update the procedures".

As this issue has been around for quite some time my intention is to 
request publication as an RFC in two weeks (28 March) so please let me 
know your comments before then.

Regards, Christian

Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
> It's not actually IANA that allocates the expert review it is IETF so  
> would need to change make it clear the expert was appointed by IETF 
> not IANA. Specifically the experts are appointed by IESG.
[CNG] No problem I can make the change from make it clear that the IESG 
appoints the expert, I see this as a rather minor change. I've referred 
to this person as the "IANA Expert" what do you suggest changing this 
to? Narten uses "Expert Reviewer" but considering this text will also 
appear in ITU documents should it be "IETF Expert Reviewer", "IESG 
Appointed Expert Reviewer", or?
>
> As I have mentioned before, IANA is not keen on the two stage process, 
> I am willing to go talk to IESG about this if you want and see if this 
> is likely to fly or not. IANA would want the expert review before the 
> IP registration - the goal here is to have the expert not IANA check 
> that the rules such as character length and and such had been 
> satisfied. Could you live with not having the two stage process? I 
> understand the problem of this for early developers of packages.
[CNG] Yes please talk to IESG, but I thought the IANA had the problem? 
This two stage process is already part of the IANA process. Please look 
at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/megaco-h248 there is a heading 
"Status" which has "In Progress (IP) and Final (FI). Today requests for 
Package IDs get sent to IANA who communicates with Tom Taylor. I guess 
he says ok (I don't see the emails) and IANA gets back to say the 
package is registered. Its registered with (IP). Then once the package 
is approved by the body that wrote it, they then request IANA to set the 
status to (FI). It is then clear for people who look at the IANA 
registration what state is package is in and both organisations are 
aligned. This was important because of the MEGACO WG and Q.3/16 link. So 
as I've mentioned the draft is not trying to change this element of an 
already existing process.

The process was designed for groups to be able to get PackageID 
information before their documents were finalised. This was to allow 
other standards bodies to be able to approve their own document. Having 
a Final status then allows the IANA/IETF to know that the work is 
finished. Having IANA as the central place to send registration requests 
and then they communicate with the expert reviewer allows other 
standards group to have a central contact point. How does Tispan / ITU / 
3GPP / MSF know who each of the relevant experts in each area. I don't 
know of any page that has this information. The experts are also likely 
to change. The process is in alignment with the Narten draft which states "

IANA forwards requests for an assignment to the expert for evaluation, 
and the
 expert (after performing the evaluation) informs IANA whether or not
 to make the assignment or registration."

With regards to your comment "I understand the problem of this for early 
developers of packages." I'm not really sure what you mean?
>
> For non public documents "made available for review" is a bit 
> undefined. Would this require a NDA in some cases? Is there any 
> reasons not to just use "Specification required" here as defined in 
> draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis?
[CNG] The issue here is that some organisations don't have their working 
drafts "publicaly available". They have them available to their members. 
E.g. you need to be a member of the ITU to get TDs for study Group 
meetings. So in this case if the Expert Reviewer is not a member of the 
ITU they won't be able to download the document via a public link. It 
must be sent to them. I don't think that a NDA is needed. Sending the 
document would be no different than sending a liaison/communication 
between standards bodies. Thus the problem with "specification required" 
being linked to a "publically available document" from the Narten draft 
means that a standards body would have to approve the document first 
before registration. However we actually want the Expert Reviewer to 
look at an early copy before the text is finalised and set in stone. It 
is much harder and causes more delay to provide comments at a late 
stage. Effectively its the problem we are having now...

Regards, Christian

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
Megaco@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco