>> -- Section 3.1 -- >> I'd REALLY like to see us stop trying to tell IANA how to handle review >> by designated experts. This should be re-cast as instructions to the DE >> (to make sure that the mailing list is consulted), and IANA should be >> left to handle the expert review with their existing process, which works >> fine. > > OAuth and JOSE have been using mailing lists where several DEs are on the > list and others can join. These lists are separate from the WG mailing > list. DEs are names with IANA, but the spec review happens on that list, > which is open. This practice pre-date me as an AD. I don't see what's > wrong with it as it separates out the requests from the WG mailing list, but > is still open and transparent. Changing it now would alter how this spec > works and would make it different from the other OAuth specs, which could be > confusing.
I'm not objecting to the mailing list. I'm objecting to telling IANA how to integrate the mailing list into its procedure, which is different from what its procedure is. IANA initiates expert review when it receives a request, contacting the DE and tracking the process. This tells IANA to send people directly to the mailing list, and only to deal with requests from the DE. The fact that requests need to be discussed on the mailing list is something that the DE should be dealing with as part of her review, and that takes us out of the business of telling IANA how to initiate and track expert review, and making Oauth reviews different from those for other protocols. Barry _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
