Hi Les, I'm happy to leave this question to Alvaro's judgment; as you know, I included it in the non-blocking portion of my ballot position. I appreciated the dedication and rigor you put into your service as a DE, and hope that all DEs can do the same. Thanks, Benjamin On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:26:19AM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > Benjamin - > > It is not my intent to engage in a debate with you. > > I serve as Designated Expert for a number of IS-IS registries. I consider it my responsibility to understand the technical content of the drafts which make changes to the registries for which I serve in this role. I do not look for or expect technical content in the IANA sections - I only expect them to be accurate in terms of the changes requested/completed to the registries. > > I have no doubt that we still disagree. If there is some consensus to make changes I will certainly listen - but if left up to me I would leave the IANA section as is. > > Les > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 6:21 PM > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: David Waltermire <david.waltermire@xxxxxxxx>; secdir@xxxxxxxx; > > lsr@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd.all@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-16 > > > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:24:31PM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > > > Benjamin - > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126#section-1.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > In particular (emphasis added): > > > > > > > > > > > > " The purpose of having a dedicated IANA Considerations section is to > > > > > > provide a single place to collect clear and concise information and > > > > > > instructions for IANA. Technical documentation should reside in > > > > > > other parts of the document…” > > > > > > > > > > > > I think what you propose is not consistent with the intent of the IANA > > section. > > > > What about Section 1.1, "guidance describing the conditions under which > > new values should be assigned [...] is needed", or section 1.3's checklist: > > > > 7. If you're using a policy that requires a designated expert > > (Expert Review or Specification Required), understand Section 5 > > and provide review guidance to the designated expert (see > > Section 5.3). > > > > Section 4.5 (Expert Review) even goes into more detail, though I'll stop > > quoting now. > > > > -Benjamin
