Re: IANA document allocation

[Thomas Narten <[e-mail]>]

"Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Yes, I do have a strong feeling about this.  As a prior "victim" of the 
> IANA expert review process, it needs to work much better in practice than 
> it has in the past in order for this to be practical.  How are the 
> following issues to be addressed:

I'll agree that the review process has not always worked as it should
in the past. But I think things are better now.

> - Naming the expert or experts

IESG names them (per RFC 2434). In practice, we ask the WG chairs and
after some discussion, someone gets picked, typically by mutual
agreement.

> - Replacing the experts following retirement, death, boredom, WG
    shutdown, etc.

IESG can replace at anytime (per 2434). Bottom line: if the expert
isn't being responsive, someone needs to raise the issue (i.e., to
make us aware) and then appropriate followup is needed.

> - Assuring timely response from the experts, who after all are volunteers 
> and presumably have revenue responsibilities

Same as above. Unresponsive experts should get replaced.

> I would also like to hear more about the supposed evils of FCFS registry 
> ranges.  There are many existing IANA registries with FCFS ranges.  Are 
> there problems associated with these registries?

It really depends on the registry. For some, FCFS is really fine. For
others, you really want some  review, to pushback on requests that
aren't appropriate. There are lots of reasons (bad idea, damaging to
the protocol or internet, duplicates existing work, etc.)

Some of this is discussed in RFC 2434 (actually,
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt would be a better
starting point).

Also, there is much discussion on the problem of "unreviewed
extensions" (which can be a problem with FCFS registries) discussed in
draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-02.txt.

Comments/discussion on either draft would of course be most welcome.

Thomas