Hi Miguel
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
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.
IANA are not meant to solve the problem, but to detect a _potential_
issue. The experts will then have to decide whether this is a problem
or not.
As expressed earlier, we had a case when an Enumservice I-D (STD) was fine
when it went into IESG processing, but it was heavily broken when it
arrived at IANA and was still broken when it arrived to AUTH48 (where it
was accidentally detected).
[Michelle / Alice, you remember this pain, don't you...?]
Other Enumservices got published as STD (!) in a buggy state (e.g.
RFC3762).
[IMHO wherever people are working, mistakes might happen (everywhere and
all the time); the more bodies involved, the higher the likelihood for
mistakes. The question here is, whether mistakes get detected before it is
too late.]
cheers,
Bernie
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
