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

[Sam Hartman <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Touch <[e-mail]> writes:

    Joe> On 2/1/2011 11:14 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
    Joe> ...
    >> Joe, the IESG had a fair amount of negative experience with this
    >> style of review just before I joined; this type of review was
    >> just about out of the process leading to blocking objections when
    >> I joined as an AD.
    >> 
    >> 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.

    Joe> Such reviews occur elsewhere in the IETF as well; it's not a
    Joe> requirement that every review include a list of all consulted
    Joe> parties. This is no different. IANA is the one making the
    Joe> decision of how to use the advice they receive.

Joe, RFC 5226 disagrees with you fairly significantly.
I draw your attention in particular to section 3.2, and particularly
call our attention to several points made there:

* The designated expert is responsible for initiating and coordinating
  the review.

* Designated experts are expected to be able to defend their *decisions*
  to the IETf community

* The process is not intended to be secretive

* Experts make a single clear recommendation to IANA

* In cases of deadlock IESG may be pulled in to resolve disputes

* When IANA receives conflicting advice, chair of pool of experts  gives
  clear *instructions* to IANA.
On page 10, the expert review criteria  requires approval of a
  designated expert.

I submit based on the above that the experts rather than IANA are making
the decision; the expert has the responsibility of justifying and
defending their decision. Moreover anonymous expert reviews violate two
BCP requirements: they tend to a secretive process and they do not
facilitate the expert defending their decision to the IETF community.

Having read RFc 5226 my objection to anonymous expert reviews is much
stronger than when I first read Cullen's message.