Re: On IETF policy for protocol registries

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Phill,

On 1/20/16 2:54 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> I don't think deliberate problems are the issue, the problem I see is
> people taking on more work than they can do. 

While I'm sure it's different for different people, when I'm late it's
almost certainly because I am in fact overloaded.  This is a balance:
one must give deference to the reviewers or one won't have reviewers. 
And of course it should be a consideration for both working groups and
the IESG as they create and manage registries.  I know of registries out
there where we would be very hard pressed to find a replacement.  To me,
THAT is a strategic issue that the IAB and IESG should consider taking
on.  Back in the IANAPLAN working group, one person suggested to me that
the protocol parameters registry should be a wiki that could be edited. 
I don't know if I would go that far, especially when it comes to certain
registries like IP version numbers, but let's acknowledge that expert
review requires resources that the IETF does itself not control.

This having been said, I don't know that this is a serious problem with
the 5785 registry, nor do I believe we should make changes based on a
single request/response.  My experience is that there is no perfect
policy; and actually I appreciate that Mark and company are willing to
donate their time to the cause.

Eliot


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]