On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 5:45 PM Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> wrote:
> The IANA registration has already been made and acknowledged by IANA. > IESG will discuss appointing an expert on their next call. > > > > I will note that what was ACTUALLY agreed to in London was that work with > IANA need not obstruct progress at the Forum itself. > That is not what is reflected in the minutes or past e-mails. > And there is certainly no requirement in either group that work on a > previous specification must complete before the next one can be proposed. > I believe that materially misrepresents what has been stated. It is not that either group formally requires that process. It's that, as demonstrated with SC13, the process and expectations were violated, and it would be poor form - enough to be reason to oppose a ballot that sought to do it - were it to be repeated. We should learn from our mistakes, not seek to justify or repeat them. > Remember, the only purpose of expert review in this context is to make > sure the tag name does not conflict with other proposals. > This is not correct. For the benefit of others: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6844#section-7.2 Addition of tag identifiers requires a public specification and Expert Review as set out in [RFC6195], Section 3.1.1. The tag space is designed to be sufficiently large that exhausting the possible tag space need not be a concern. The scope of Expert Review SHOULD be limited to the question of whether the specification provided is sufficiently clear to permit implementation and to avoid unnecessary duplication of functionality.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
