* Dave Crocker wrote: >It's almost inevitable that many designated experts will, in fact, act >as gatekeepers. For example the distinction between "won't do damage" >vs. "looks like excellent engineering" is more subtle in practice than >one might think. Especially absent very precise specification of review >criteria and absent actual training of the reviewers. It seems to me that if an expert reviewer thinks that something will do notable harm, they should decline to make a decision and defer it to the IETF at large; and any registration procedure that does not allow that is broken. (Similarily, let's assume that something will do harm, but an expert reviewer fails to see it, but others do: they should have the a- bility to appeal expert reviewer decisions, so the matter can be brought to the attention of more and possibly better qualified people; if that is not an option, the process is broken; if, on the other hand, nobody cares to use available procedures, including making a big fuss over it in the regular press, or whatever, then it probably was not important e- nough.) -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/