Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Jeffrey> Sam Hartman wrote: > >> Unless there is strong support for the more complex > >> registration process in the draft, we'd like to go to expert > >> review. > > Jeffrey> The technical argument in favor of a review list, whether > Jeffrey> a special list for this purpose or some pre-existing list > Jeffrey> such as SecDir, is that it is not always easy to find > Jeffrey> experts who are familiar with both of the protocols being > Jeffrey> bound. As a result, having more reviewers is a safety > Jeffrey> net. This is especially important for reviews of > Jeffrey> security protocols. > > How would you feel about an optional review list? > > IESG experience has shown that mandatory review steps in previous > registries tend to add frustration. There are cases where optional > review lists do add value. > > --Sam I'm not sure what the issue is here. The requirement that the draft makes is that there be a list and that after posting to the list that the assigned expert wait two weeks for any reviews that might be received before making a decision. I do not believe that a two week review period is burdensome nor do I believe that having a public list that interested parties can monitor is a bad thing. Perhaps if you described the problems the IESG believes might occur with this process I might feel differently. Jeffrey Altman
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf