Subject: Proposal: METHOD REVIEWER changes

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:17:20 -0700

There were issues with the METHOD REVIEWER. The issue was
that there was not a method to appeal when something was accepted.
This is a proposal to add that text (marked with '+') and
to delete text (marked with '-') to the existing text.

12.2.4 Submit the proposal for approval

   Once the two-week comment period has elapsed, and the proposer is
   convinced consensus has been reached on the proposal, the
   registration application should be submitted to the Method Reviewer
   for approval.  The Method Reviewer is appointed by the Application
   Area Directors and can either accept or reject the proposal
   registration.  An accepted registration should be passed on by the
   Method Reviewer to the IANA for inclusion in the official IANA method
   registry.  The registration can be rejected for any of the following
   reasons.  1) Insufficient comment period; 2) Consensus not reached;
   3) Technical deficiencies raised on the list or elsewhere have not
-  been addressed.  The Method Reviewers decision to reject a proposal
-  can be appealed by the proposer to the IESG, or the objections raised
-  can be addressed by the proposer and the proposal resubmitted.
+  been addressed.  Decisions made by the reviewer may be
+  appealed to the IESG.

---

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:05:17 -0500

>that there was not a method to appeal when something was accepted.

If we keep the method reviewer, I support this proposal; it fixes the 
original problem I pointed out.
,
However, I still maintain that there is no room for a reviewer in a 
protocol spec.  It's a way of short-circuiting the RFC process, and 
updating the protocol without having to get consensus, go through Last 
Call, advance on the standards track, etc.  It works for MIME types only 
because MIME types are completely independent (defining text/foo does not 
have any impact on anybody who doesn't use it), and are normally defined 
merely as labels for existing file types.  For iCalendar properties, etc., 
it does not work, because the properties are interdependent.

Patrik and Ned, can you guys please give us an opinion here?

/========================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer     |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.|
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.|
|========================================================|
|"What a plan! Simple, yet insane!" -- _Monsters, Inc._  |
\========================================================/