Miguel - My view (and this is my personal opinion here), is that the expert review by IANA is needed for a few reasons. First, in our lengthy consensus-building process on this I-D, and in consultation with IANA, they (IANA) requested it and indicated it as desirable. In addition, the path to an ENUM service registration will NOT always come via the I-D/RFC process. So we need to ensure there is an expert review process no matter what path the registration follows to arrive at IANA. Lastly, having a standard set of experts to review registrations ensures a level of continuity and context on ENUM service registrations that may not exist when an individual expert or experts are selected for pre-RFC review (which again, will not apply in all situations).
Hope this helps. Jason On 6/28/10 4:22 AM, "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] >> Regards, Jason Jason Livingood Executive Director Internet Systems Engineering National Engineering & Technical Operations Comcast Cable Communications 215-286-7813 [email protected] _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
