Re: [Wish] Artart early review of draft-ietf-wish-whip-08

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Sergio, and thanks for the detailed response.

Leaving only the open questions, with the rest deleted:

> I think we want to use just BCP 26 "Specification Required" for allowing anyone to register a new
> extension (which could be driven by an open source community for example) without requiring a
> full RFC.

Great; yes, that seems best.

>> It also seems that you only require an RFC in certain circumstances (modifying
>> things that have already been in RFCs), but that’s unclear.
>
> Not sure exactly how to clarify this, are you referring that it is unclear why we are asking for an RFC
> when we already asked for an RFC always (which we have changed now) or  about clarifying when
> "things that have already been in RFCs" mean?

I think this and other points about documentation are taken care of by
changing to Specification Required, so nothing further needed here.

>> This also needs some guidance for the designated expert — assume that
>> eventually there will be a DE who was not around when this was written.  What
>> should be DE be looking for?  What reasons might there be to “reject with
>> cause”?  What documentation will the DE be relying on?  What judgment will the
>> DE be applying?  It doesn't have to be incredibly detailed, but there should be
>> some reasonable guidance.
>
> Do you have any previous examples of this that we can use as reference?

I'd have to dig around through other RFCs, but I think RFC 8126 has
something... looking.  It doesn't look like there are examples there,
but there is discussion in Section 5.3 about giving advice to the
designated experts.  If that's not enough, let me know and I'll see
what I can find in existing RFCs.  And keep in mind that we're not
talking about a long essay here: just a paragraph that mentions how
strict to be, and reasons to say "no" to a request... or advice that
saying "no" is generally not necessary, and the DE is just doing a
reasonability check.

>> > Within two weeks, the designated expert is expected to tell IANA
>> > and the submitter of the registration whether the registration
>> > is approved, approved with minor changes, or rejected with
>> > cause.
>>
>> Normally, the expert communicates with IANA and IANA informs the requester and
>> tracks the process.  Unless there’s a very good reason to vary for this case, I
>> strongly recommend that you let IANA handle this through its normal process,
>> and that you consult Amanda if necessary to understand how their normal process
>> works.  Remember that they do a lot of these.
>
> How should we change the text to reflect that?

Mostly, by eliminating that paragraph, I guess, as IANA already has a
process to interact with DEs and to remind them if they don't respond
in a timely way.

Barry