We don't require that all three validate the registration. Ian only asked that his approval be double-checked, which I think is appropriate in this case, especially when we found the minor error.
Overall, IANA lets experts decide whether one or multiple experts need to approve registrations. We've informally adopted a policy of double-checking for this registry, but I would propose that only apply to permanent registrations. On Wed, Oct 12, 2022, at 07:44, David Schinazi wrote: > Hi folks, > > Why do we require reviews from all three QUIC IANA designated experts > instead of round robin or first response? This practice is unusual > compared to other registries and sounds like it will introduce > significant delays. > > Thanks, > David > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 8:46 AM Martin Duke <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes, permanent >> >> On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 5:10 PM Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I can approve the registration, but the draft should be requesting a >>> *permanent* registration. It is currently provisional. >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022, at 06:16, Ian Swett wrote: >>> > This looks good to me. Please wait for Jana or Martin to respond as >>> > well before finalizing. >>> > >>> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 2:08 PM David Dong via RT >>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> Dear Jana, Ian, Martin (cc: quic wg), >>> >> >>> >> As the designated experts for the QUIC Versions registry, can you review >>> >> the proposed registration in draft-ietf-quic-v2 for us? Please see >>> >> >>> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-v2/ >>> >> >>> >> The due date is 24 Oct 2022. >>> >> >>> >> If this is OK, when the IESG approves the document for publication, >>> >> we'll make the registration at >>> >> >>> >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/quic/ >>> >> >>> >> We'll wait for all three reviewers to respond unless you tell us >>> >> otherwise. >>> >> >>> >> With thanks, >>> >> >>> >> David Dong >>> >> IANA Services Specialist >>>
