Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-06

[Tero Kivinen <[e-mail]>]

Samuel Weiler writes:
> >>    Registration of an IMAP keyword intended for common use (whether or
> >>    not they use the "$" prefix) requires Expert Review [RFC5226].  IESG
> >>    appoints one or more Expert Reviewer, one of which is designated as
> >>    the primary Expert Reviewer.  IMAP keywords intended for common use
> >>    SHOULD be standardized in IETF Consensus [RFC5226] documents. ...
> >>    In cases when an IMAP
> >>    Keyword being registered is already deployed, Expert Reviewers
> >>    should favour registering it over requiring perfect documentation.
> >> 
> >> Would it be better to say: "requires either IETF Consensus or Expert 
> >> Review"?
> >
> > Not everybody is subscribed to ietf or ietf-announce mailing lists, so I 
> > would like for all common use registrations to go through the expert.
> 
> I don't like the logic (while not everybody is subscribed to the 
> lists, your expert surely could be, and it's easy from an AD to punt 
> the doc to the expert).

Acting as an IANA expert for IKEv2 registries, I have noticed that
expert do not get any option to say anything for documents which go
through IESG. The IANA registry is just updated without any discussion
with expert in those cases. So I do not think whether it affects
anything if you say "requires Expert Review" compared to the "requires
Expert Review or IETF Consensus", or at least you might want to add
explicit text to make it sure that the review policy mandates that all
assignments go through the Expert..
-- 
[e-mail]