On 24/06/2010 22:07, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/22/10 12:03 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
> 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.
What do you mean by "not enough"? My understanding is that the IANA
wants to avoid late surprises that might modify registrations specified
in Internet-Drafts, and that they have collaborated with the RFC Editor
team to define improved processes for dealing with such problems
Well, if the I-D is cooked in a working group, then experts are involved
throughout the entire life of the I-D. If the I-D is an individual
submission that was not carefully reviewed in a working group, experts
come into the picture at a later stage, either through the review process
or any of the various reviews that the I-D will suffer, including IETF
LC, Gen-ART review, etc.
So, in any case, I believe the draft is well reviewed when it lands to
IANA. I don't understand why IANA needs to change their process to bring
more experts to review the draft. It gives me the impression that the I-D
process does not suffer enough review and IANA can solve that problem.
/Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
