Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:24:42 -0400
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <20050701152442.GA3148@xxxxxxxxx>
| So if someone documented a code point in a registry with a scares
| number of available code points which was actively harmful to the
| entire infrastructure, as long as the documentation was appropriate,
| the IESG should approve it?
Yes. If the code point space is really that scarce that you'd consider
that a relevant issue, then something needs to be done to increase the
space, as even if an occasional "weird" request were rejected, the
legitimate ones are clearly going to fill it quickly anyway. For IPv6
options, the option space is not a problem, not now, and at the rate
options are being allocated, not anytime this century.
| Why then would we bother to delegate that kind of decision to the
| IESG? If it's all about documentation, the IANA can do that level of
| work.
That point was raised in private mail as well. And no, the IANA no
longer can. Once, yes, but now IANA isn't given the discretion to make
any value judgements. I don't think I like that much, but that wasn't
my decision. If the question were just whether documentation exists,
then IANA could do that, that's a simple yes/no. That's also approximately
what FCFS allocations require. But where the question is whether the
documentation is adequate, someone who can make that kind of judgement
is required.
As I said in an earlier message, you'd only ask the IESG to do that
normally if you didn't expect there to be very many requests. Where
many are expected, having a designated expert is the better choice.
| We go to a lot of trouble via the nomcom process to find people
| who are technically competent and have the widsom to apply that
| technical comptence for the Powers of Good. Why then should we charge
| them to act like programmable robots?
Not like that, and the competence that should most be required of
IESG members is the ability to manage the process. That is not
necessarily technical brilliance. Some of the best IESG members that
we have had I would characterise as technically mediocore. The ones
who have been technically excellent have also sometimes been the ones
who have obstructed things the most (IMO).
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf