[change of subject] On 6/12/12 3:13 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > > On 2012/06/05 20:11, Stephen Farrell wrote:
<snip/> >> I strongly disagree with merging ni& nih. Though that clearly >> could be done, it would be an error. >> >> There was no such comment on the uri-review list and the designated >> expert was happy. That review was IMO the time for such comments >> and second-guessing the designated expert at this stage seems >> contrary to the registration requirements. So process-wise I >> think your main comment is late. > > First, if IETF Last Call is too late to make serious technical comments > on drafts, then I think we have to rename it to IETF Too-Late Call. > > Second, designated experts are there to check for minimum requirements > for a registration, and to give advice as they see fit (and have time). > I'm myself a designated expert on "Character Sets", and I have > definitely in the past approved, and would again in the future approve, > registrations for stuff on which I would complain strongly if the > question was "is this a good technical solution". > > Graham Klyne, the designated expert for URI scheme registrations, has > confirmed offline that he does not see his role as "expert reviewer" as > judging the technical merit of a URI scheme proposal. By my reading, the "happiana" discussions [1] over the 12+ months have led most participants to the conclusion that registration does not imply standardization, and that it's not the role of the designated expert to act as a gatekeeper with respect to the technical merits of the technologies that trigger registration requests. It might be good to have a wider discussion about the purpose of registries and the role of designated experts, but IMHO it's not correct to conclude that a technology is acceptable just because the designated expert didn't object to the registrations related to that technology. Peter [1] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/happiana
