Richard, Jason:
I understand that ENUM will eventually close. Any Internet-Draft (either
an individual submission or coming from another IETF WG) will be reviewed
by experts. In particular, the IANA considerations section can indicate
that an Expert Review shall be conducted before populating the registry.
The IESG shall appoint the Expert Review (not IANA), in this case.
So, I am not sure if my point was misunderstood or I am missing
something. My point is that the regular process that makes an I-D become
an RFC already includes the Expert Review. In particular, the draft
requires a Designated Expert to conduct a review (this applies, I guess,
also to non-WG I-Ds). So, if the IESG is already going to conduct an
Expert Review as part of the regular process of the I-D, why does IANA
need to conduct another (presumably different) expert review? The text in
the draft gives the impression that the RFC process is useless, and the
Expert Review mandated by the IESG is also useless, because there is a
need for yet another Expert Review controlled by IANA.
Let me reproduce once more the text I am in conflict, which is listed in
Section 11.6.1:
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.
I can understand the first sentence, if it is framed within the RFC
process (which is not at the moment). But I cannot understand the second
sentence: it is not the goal of IANA to resolve any conflict; the IESG
should do it as part of the RFC process/Expert review, but not IANA. And
I cannot vouch for the second sentence either, which is once more, IMHO,
part of the IESG duties.
/Miguel
On 25/06/2010 16:30, Richard Shockey wrote:
Exactly ... this is precisely the reason why the procedure was designed. We
need to close the ENUM WG.
And in most cases IMHO these are relatively trivial technical registrations.
Personally as ENUM WG chair I would have preferred first come first serve
with only expert review and no RFC but this was the consensus of the wG.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Livingood [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 9:04 AM
To: Miguel A. Garcia; Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: Bernie Hoeneisen; General Area Review Team;
[email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Michelle Cotton; RFC Editor
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-20.txt
Miguel - To add to what Bernie already said, there actually won't be an ENUM
WG at some point rather soon. So there will not in most cases be any WG
review per se, another reason why expert review is called for.
Jason
On 6/25/10 3:46 AM, "Miguel A. Garcia"<[email protected]> wrote:
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
Regards,
Jason
Jason Livingood
Executive Director
Internet Systems Engineering
National Engineering& Technical Operations
Comcast Cable Communications
215-286-7813
[email protected]
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
