Also let's ensure there are several experts like we have for new RR Types. On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 4:06 PM Eric Orth <ericorth= 40google....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> I'm happy as long as things are still fast and easy enough to support > new/experimental/prototype usage. I think Expert Review with the proposed > stuff for that expert to review is all reasonable for that goal. If we > start getting into stricter bars than Expert Review, that's where we'd have > to start discussing the complexity of breaking off separate private-use and > experimental blocks with a lower bar. > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 3:10 PM Erik Nygren <erik+i...@nygren.org> wrote: > >> I think Expert Review makes sense (with the expert reviewing the SHOULD >> around the specification). >> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 8:34 PM Martin Thomson <m...@lowentropy.net> wrote: >> >>> I agree with Tommy. >>> >>> Selecting an expert who is able to recognize when wider review might >>> help is a far lower bar than the one Ray suggests might be necessary. >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022, at 05:29, Tommy Pauly wrote: >>> > If this space is not extensible from non-IETF RFCs, we’ll have missed >>> > the mark. The space is designed to be large (65K) to allow new work to >>> > easily use this extensibility. We don’t need to be too conservative >>> > with this space. >>> > >>> > I disagree that there wouldn’t be good experts — we have authors of >>> the >>> > document who have seen it through, and we have more people using this >>> > RR and gaining expertise. >>> > >>> > Expert review is the right balance here. >>> > >>> > Tommy >>> > >>> >> On Mar 22, 2022, at 9:24 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 9:10 AM Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote: >>> >>> I am concerned that the set of Expert Reviewers necessary to handle >>> SVCB >>> >>> needs to have both expert DNS experience *and* detailed knowledge of >>> the >>> >>> SVCB model for this to work. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am not sure there's anybody who fits that criteria. >>> >> >>> >> Specification Required also assumes a community that can produce >>> them, which presumably contains the right experts. >>> >> >>> >> Are we actually moving toward IETF Review here? >>> >> >>> >> -MSK >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> DNSOP mailing list >>> >> DNSOP@ietf.org >>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > DNSOP mailing list >>> > DNSOP@ietf.org >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DNSOP mailing list >>> DNSOP@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >> > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
