On 20/01/2016 14:49, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> NEW: >>> Appeals against protocol parameter registration decisions and >>> unreasonable delays in such decisions can be made using the normal >>> IETF appeals process... >> >> That won't work without defining "unreasonable". > > I think it will, because I think that in most cases the registrants > and the DEs and/or IANA do engage in reasonable consideration of > delays, but that once we get to a point where the DEs and the > registrant are sufficiently at odds that the registrant feels the DEs > are being unreasonable, by whatever definition, and explanations > aren't being accepted, it's time to get an AD involved and to let the > DEs get back to the other work they're doing. We'll never be able to > define "unreasonable", but we will know such a situation when we see > it. > > In any case, I think I would change it to this: > > NEWNEW > Appeals against protocol parameter registration decisions and > unreasonable delays in such decisions can be made using the normal > IETF dispute resolution process, including escalation to an appropriate > Area Director, and possible a formal appeal... > > (...keeping in mind that 2026 specifies that formal appeals start with > the full IESG, but that one should start by dealing with the > responsible AD first.) Yes, that's better than my proposal. And yes, it's OK to use a judgement word like 'unreasonable' in the description of an appeal process, because any appeal intrinsically involves an element of judgement. Brian