Hi Peter:
There are two aspects of this proposal:
a) Whether IANA accepts the change in the process to bring the experts
prior to modifications
b) A sentiment that the RFC process, in particular the involvement of
experts in the RFC process, is not enough.
While you mention that a) is being addressed, I am worried about b). Do
we agree that the involvement of experts in the RFC process experts is
not enough and needs to be amended by I-D? And if we agree on b),
shouldn't be logical to change the RFC process rather than a workaround?
/Miguel
On 21/06/2010 23:20, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Hi Miguel,
I expressed exactly this concern in my DISCUSS on this I-D. During the
IESG telechat last Thursday, Michelle Cotton of the IANA explained that:
(1) there is agreement to try this approach for this registry
(2) the RFC Editor and the IANA are in agreement here
(3) proposed changes to RFC 5226 are on the way
Michelle will be following up on these matters (with Bernie) so that
they are clearly communicated to the IESG and all other relevant
parties. I'm holding my DISCUSS until that happens.
Peter
On 6/21/10 12:00 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
Hi Bernie:
Your proposal does not solve my concern. My concern is very clear: you
are changing the IANA process to make the get the green light from
experts before editing a registry, even for a document that has gone
through the regular RFC process.
This could hint that the RFC process is flawed, and that you need to
change the IANA process to reinforce them. And I don't think IANA is
going to change their way of working just for this RFC.
/Miguel
On 20/06/2010 15:33, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
Hi Miguel / Russ
I have added "(conditionally)" to mitigate the risk of confusion:
In case changes between the (conditionally) approved and the
to be published version are substantial, IANA MAY reject
the request after consulting the experts.
Does this change together with the explanations I gave last week (see
below) address your concerns?
cheers,
Bernie
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
Hi Miguel
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
- Section 11.6.1 discusses the process of registering Enumservices
through
the publication of an RFC. I don't understand the purpose of the second
paragraph, which chances the process to IANA. The text reads:
IANA MUST only add Enumservices to the Registry, if the experts have
approved the corresponding Enumservice Specification as to be
published. IANA SHOULD attempt to resolve possible conflicts
arising
from this together with the experts. In case changes between the
approved and the to be published version are substantial, IANA MAY
reject the request after consulting the experts.
My problem is related to the process. If a document has gone through
the
RFC publication process, I expect that experts have inspected the
document
and approved the Specification prior to publication as an RFC, as
part of a
regular RFC process. This process may differ between standard track
RFCs
and individual submissions, but in any case, experts are involved in
the
RFC publication process, and the RFC will not be published if
experts voice
against the document. Or when do the authors expect that an
Internet-Draft
could be published without expert review?
So, I think that for RFCs, IANA does not need to do anything
different from
what they are doing today.
Before the document goes to the IETF process, the experts will review
it.
Afterwards, it is not guaranteed that the experts remain in the
process. If
there are no changes until the document arrives ar IANA, no problem.
If there
are changes, IANA needs somebody to have a look at the latest version.
We added this sentence to ensure the experts have a chance to verify
possible
changes are fine in any case.
Note: Not too long time ago, there was a case where major flaws got
introduced as a result of the IESG processing. We noticed this during
auth48
and it was rather painful to handle this case.
I hope this addresses you concerns.
cheers,
Bernie
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
