Thanks - yes that makes it clear and I like the way IANA handles all of this. On Jan 31, 2011, at 9:55 , Michelle Cotton wrote: > Cullen, > > We do have some technical expertise within the IANA staff, however our > expertise is more aligned with the process of creating and maintaining > registries. Part of that includes relying on the experts that the IESG > designates to make the decisions for requests that utilize the "Expert > Review" policy in RFC 5226. > > In the past, if there is strong disagreement from an expert and the > requester disagrees, we have brought the Transport Area Directors into the > communications to see if all parties can come to an agreement. In almost > all cases, this is where a final decision is made. If that set of folks can > not come to a conclusion, we then would default to going to the IESG. With > all requests, if there is any uncertainty as to what decision should be > made, we go to the IESG for guidance. > > We do rely on the technical expertise of the appointed experts for all > registries, but we ALWAYS have the possibility to seek guidance form the > IESG. > > I don't believe we have ever had an official appeals with ports (Knocking on > wood really hard!). > > Does that help? > > --Michelle > > > > On 1/31/11 8:33 AM, "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> So IANA has a huge amount of technical expertise and takes maintaing the >> registries very seriously. I've seen them catch technical mistakes that made >> all the way through WG and IESG review. I've got huge respect for technical >> competence of IANA and in particular Michelle. So I'm not questions that but >> I don't recall seeing them override an expert on a technical issue. I'd be >> happy to hear of examples but lets consider the example I am actually >> concerned about here. >> >> I put in a request for a latency sensitive protocol that uses DTLS and request >> a different port for the secure version. Joe as expert review says we should >> redesign the protocol to use something like STARTLS and run on one port. I >> assert, with very little evidence, that will not meet the latency goals of the >> protocol. Joe does not agree. >> >> So Michelle, in that case, would you be willing to override Joe? I'm sure you >> would be willing to help facilitate any conversations, bring in other people >> such as ADs that can help etc. I was sort of working on the assumption that >> you would not override Joe in this case and the the only path forward would be >> an appeal to Lars but perhaps that is just a bad assumption on my part. >> Appeals are really the worst way possible to resolve things. I have a hard >> time imagining that IANA would want to engage in a technical discussion to >> resolve this and instead relies on the expert reviewer. I'll note that the >> expert review may report to IANA but they are selected by and replaced by the >> IESG. >> >> The important point here is that I really don't care if it is Joe or IANA that >> is saying no - I think this document should be clear that this BCP can not be >> used as grounds for rejecting the request for a second port for security. >> >> >> >> On Jan 30, 2011, at 12:09 , Michelle Cotton wrote: >> >>> David has said this well. Thank you. >>> >>> Please let me know if there are any other questions. >>> >>> --Michelle >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/30/11 10:52 AM, "David Conrad" <drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> Cullen, >>>> >>>> On Jan 29, 2011, at 8:54 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: >>>>>> AFAICT, the experts team reports to IANA. We make recommendations to >>>>>> them. They are the ones who have the conversation with the applicant. >>>>>> They can take our advice or not - that's their decision. >>>>> >>>>> I think you are pretty misrepresenting the situation. My impression of the >>>>> reality of the situation is that if the IANA did not like the advice of the >>>>> expert reviewer, they might ask the AD to override but short of that they >>>>> pretty much do whatever the expert says. >>>> >>>> >>>> Joe is closer. >>>> >>>> In general, IANA staff are not technical experts in any of the wide variety >>>> of >>>> areas for which they are asked to provide registry services. As such, they >>>> rely on technical experts to provide input/advice/recommendations. In the >>>> past, there were some very rare cases in which the advice provided by the >>>> technical experts was deemed insufficient and IANA staff looked to the ADs >>>> or >>>> the IESG for additional input. However, at least historically, IANA staff >>>> viewed the maintenance of the registries as their responsibility (at the >>>> direction of the IESG), not the technical experts' responsibility. I would >>>> be >>>> surprised if this had changed. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> -drc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ietf mailing list >>>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>> >> >> >> Cullen Jennings >> For corporate legal information go to: >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html >> >> > Cullen Jennings For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf