Let me comment on this. I've been one of the three TLS registry experts for a couple of years. TL;DR I think the draft is not in conflict with how things are done.
On 12/2/20, 5:37 AM, "tom petch" <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This I-D seems at odds with RFC8126 over the use of Expert Review in s.8.7
' The responsible AD will appoinht ...'
RFC8126 seems clear that the IESG appoints and may do so in advance and
having more than one is recommended
Well, the AD is part of the IESG. From what I have seen, registry experts are always appointed by the AD's, as they are expected to be the subject matter experts.
'the expert will approve or deny..'
RFC8126 seems clear that that is the role of IANA. The expert
recommends and it is then up to IANA to act
IANA's actions are updating the registry. The expert(s) recommendations are binding.
> 'the expert can approve allocations.
No, that is the role of IANA; early allocation is possible but that is
the decision of IANA.
If there's an expert, IANA will forward to the expert(s) and ask what to do.
I think reading Section 5 justifies my views above. Perhaps 8126 is not internally consistent in some of these details.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
