IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09.txt> (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP

Chris Benson <cbenson@adax.com> Mon, 07 February 2011 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <cbenson@adax.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 835BF3A6EFE; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:21:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PEz9xHPKI7II; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:21:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.adax.com (mail1.adax.com [208.201.231.104]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844EE3A6E62; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:21:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from adax (adax [12.0.0.88]) by mail1.adax.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A92361209B4; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:21:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by adax (Postfix, from userid 243) id DCA758ED57; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:24:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by adax (Postfix) with ESMTP id D536C8ED52; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:24:52 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 13:24:52 -0800
From: Chris Benson <cbenson@adax.com>
X-X-Sender: cbenson@adax.adax
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09.txt> (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP
In-Reply-To: <tslbp2vh8ig.fsf@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1102071321290.4671@adax.adax>
References: <20110118212603.5733.34489.idtracker@localhost> <B88A8A82-9C4A-40AC-89AF-F177260760F7@cisco.com> <ECA80A72-4E72-44D2-B40E-C90D7197E8C5@nokia.com> <4D421795.70505@isi.edu> <tslbp2vh8ig.fsf@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, tsvwg@ietf.org, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:21:40 -0000

Hi folks,

Sam Hartman wrote (and others suggest):
>>
>>  I think that being able to discuss concerns with reviewers and being
>>  able to consider potential conflicts and other issues mean that an open
>>  dialogue with identified reviewers is an important part of our
>>  process. Anonymous contributions may have their place in the WG process,
>>  but I don't think they should have a place in expert review oor blocking
>>  objections to documents.  So, as an individual I strongly support making
>>  expert reviewers identities public.
>>  

I don't see that "public identity" (of expert reviewers) is 
required for "interactive discussion".  Or would anonymous
interaction fail a Turing test of some kind?

Chris Benson.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email