> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:05 AM > To: John C Klensin > Cc: SM; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: registries and designated experts > > John, > > On 2012-06-12 19:38, John C Klensin wrote: > > > > --On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 19:13 +0100 Brian E Carpenter > > <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> The above is at odds with standardization. The last reason > >>> does not apply for Expert review. > >> I don't understand that statement. RFC 5226 says, in Section 2 > >> about "Why Management of a Namespace May Be Necessary": > >> > >> " A third, and perhaps most important, consideration concerns > >> potential impact on the interoperability of unreviewed > >> extensions." > >> > >> One of the specific considerations for designated experts in > >> section 3.3 is > >> > >> " - the extension would cause problems with existing > >> deployed systems." > >> > >> It seems clear that interoperability is a primary concern for > >> any expert review. > > > > Brian, Subramanian, > > > > I've with Barry on this. The details of the expectations of an > > expert reviewer, including the thresholds for approval, should > > be specified in whatever document sets up the particular > > registry. One size does not fit all; "Expert Review" is a > > designation of a mechanism and not a set of criteria. > > I completely agree. My point was only that the baseline set by > RFC 5226 is clear that interoperability is a criterion. The > details vary case by case and should be written down. > > I also agree with what I think Randy meant - the designated > expert shouldn't be afraid to say no (or yes) in dubious > cases; that's why we designate an expert... > [[DR]] +1. I think that it's a good thing to provide guidelines in the RFCs for Expert Reviews criteria, it's better than oral tradition, they set and document the expectations at the time the document is approved. However guidelines are just guidelines, otherwise the process could have been completely automated, and the expert is the one called to make the firm yes/no recommendation to IANA. If at some point in time the guidelines are in conflict with the reality, the RFC should be updated, sometimes the policy changed. Maybe an IESG statement on this respect can help here. Dan