On 2/1/2011 9:19 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
So to summarize what you are saying, ports are allocated based on an
arbitrary view of the expert review. When this person will say yes or no
too can't be described and will change over time.
See my other post. Section 8.1.1 already states that there are other
means besides expert review.
If that's how it works, there is not even any grounds for appeal of
any given decision.
The grounds are "disagree with the advice of the Expert Review". The
IESG can overturn those decisions on that basis alone. They can - and
have - held up decisions that have come from community consensus as
well. I.e., this is no different from other appeals process. It is based
on the strength of the argument.
From your earlier post:
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.
The burden of proof, especially when asking for multiple ports, ought to
be on the applicant. "very little evidence" is the issue, and if that
didn't convince me, then there's an appeals process listed in RFC 5226
which you could have used to take that "very little evidence" to
convince the IESG to overturn the decision.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf