> This document defines the designated expert mechanism with respect to > documents in the IETF stream only. Documents in other streams may > only use a registration policy that requires a designated expert if > those streams (or those documents) specify how designated experts are > appointed and managed. What is described below, with management by > the IESG, is only appropriate for the IETF stream. > > Can you explain what is meant by this paragraph, and could you provide an > example where this document does NOT apply? The "only" is misplaced in the second sentence; that sentence should be, "Documents in other streams may use a registration policy that requires a designated expert only if those streams (or those documents) specify how designated experts are appointed and managed." This comes from situations that have arisen wherein a document in the Independent Stream asks for a new registry with "Expert Review", which commits the IESG to appointing and managing a designated expert. This paragraph is meant to say that, for example, and Independent Stream document that makes such a request also has to specify who is responsible for appointing and managing the DE -- and that isn't going to be the IESG. It also allows for, say, the IRTF to write a document that says that documents in the IRTF Stream can do this, and the DEs are appointed and managed by the IRSG. I will correct the placement of the "only" in my copy. > o The designated expert is not required to personally bear the > burden of evaluating and deciding all requests, but acts as a > shepherd for the request, enlisting the help of others as > appropriate. In the case that a request is denied, and rejecting > the request is likely to be controversial, the expert should have > the support of other subject matter experts. That is, the expert > must be able to defend a decision to the community as a whole. First, I'll note that this paragraph is unchanged from RFC 5226. > The penultimate sentence of the paragraph seems to impose a new step to > reject a request. I'd like to understand what led to this text being > inserted. You'll have to ask Thomas and Harald that question. > As the IESG been inundated with appeals of technical expert > decisions? We have not. > I am concerned because if we increase the burden on experts who > are volunteers, I'd point out, people may find that the effort isn't worth > the results to continue. As this has been in effect since 2008, I don't think it's a problem. I welcome any specific change you have to suggest. Barry