Subject: IANA document

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:57:37 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I think that the consensus of the WG list is that all values should
be a consistent "Expert Review". Please disagree.

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked]      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [

---

From: "Scott G. Kelly" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:27:08 -0800

> be a consistent "Expert Review". Please disagree.

As you wish :-)  This is a difficult question, but given that the IETF 
is a political organization, effectively concentrating this power in one 
individual seems inappropriate.

Personally, I liked the summary of allocation policies you first 
suggested, and thought your rationale was well founded. I think Jari 
raised some reasonable questions, but I don't think a case was made for 
giving the whole kit and kaboodle over to a benevolent dictator.

There is much to be said for public review and consensus.

Scott

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:01:17 -0800

At 12:27 PM -0800 2/3/04, Scott G. Kelly wrote:
>As you wish :-)  This is a difficult question, but given that the 
>IETF is a political organization, effectively concentrating this 
>power in one individual seems inappropriate.

The person is appointed by the IESG. They can be replaced at any time.

>raised some reasonable questions, but I don't think a case was made 
>for giving the whole kit and kaboodle over to a benevolent dictator.

These are assignments to IANA, not protocol additions.

>There is much to be said for public review and consensus.

Exactly right. It is quite reasonable for the IPsec community to ask 
the IESG to make sure that the IKEv2 IANA reviewer does everything in 
public, and even asks for comments on each action. This is a trivial 
task (mailing lists and web sites, you know), and would  certainly 
make it so that if the reviewer said "no" to something, people who 
cared would know immediately to talk to the IESG.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "Scott G. Kelly" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:42:18 -0800

Hi Paul,

I guess I'm concerned about two eventualities: (1) the expert, perhaps 
for personal reasons, treats one person's request differently than 
another's, or (2) the expert, perhaps due to a personal opinion, refuses 
to allow something that other "experts" view as a good idea. Do you 
think there are adequate contingencies in place to prevent either of these?

Of course, we all believe that if we were the designated expert, such a 
thing would never occur. But we are all human, so maybe it could at 
that. I guess that so long as there is some sort of reliable appeal 
process for such cases, that addresses my concern to some extent.

Scott

Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
>> is a political organization, effectively concentrating this power in 
>> one individual seems inappropriate.
> 
> 
> Exactly right. It is quite reasonable for the IPsec community to ask the 
> IESG to make sure that the IKEv2 IANA reviewer does everything in 
> task (mailing lists and web sites, you know), and would  certainly make 
> it so that if the reviewer said "no" to something, people who cared 
> would know immediately to talk to the IESG.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:53:38 -0800

At 2:42 PM -0800 2/3/04, Scott G. Kelly wrote:
>I guess I'm concerned about two eventualities: (1) the expert, 
>perhaps for personal reasons, treats one person's request 
>differently than another's, or (2) the expert, perhaps due to a 
>personal opinion, refuses to allow something that other "experts" 
>view as a good idea.

Both are very valid concerns.

>  Do you think there are adequate contingencies in place to prevent 
>either of these?

Yes. If the expert does one of the above in a public fashion, people 
will complain to the IESG and the IESG will either replace the 
expert, decide they agree with the expert's personal reasons, or 
decide they don't care. That's why making public all requests that go 
to the expert and all responses they make to IANA is a Good Thing.

>Of course, we all believe that if we were the designated expert, 
>such a thing would never occur.

I don't believe that for a moment. If you were the expert, given your 
record here on the mailing list, I could imagine some personal 
reasons for you to reject things. (That "you" is any "you" on this 
mailing list, including me, of course.)

>  But we are all human, so maybe it could at that. I guess that so 
>long as there is some sort of reliable appeal process for such 
>cases, that addresses my concern to some extent.

I wouldn't say that complaining to the IESG is "reliable", but it is 
certainly available. Further, this mailing list will still exist 
after the WG shuts down, and complaints sent to the IESG and Cc'd on 
this mailing list would certainly get the attention of those who feel 
similarly aggrieved.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:48:13 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "VPNC" == VPNC  <Paul> writes:

    VPNC> Yes. If the expert does one of the above in a public fashion, people 
    VPNC> will complain to the IESG and the IESG will either replace the 
    VPNC> expert, decide they agree with the expert's personal reasons, or 
    VPNC> decide they don't care. That's why making public all requests that
    VPNC> go to the expert and all responses they make to IANA is a Good
    VPNC> Thing. 

  wouldn't just putting "IETF Consensus" be as good if that's what we really
want to occur?

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:42:03 -0800

>   wouldn't just putting "IETF Consensus" be as good if that's what we really

No, because that causes the IESG to get involved for every single 
registration. They're already busy enough, and should only be 
bothered when there is a problem.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "Scott G. Kelly" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:42:18 -0800

Hi Paul,

Scott

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:10:52 +0900

>process for such cases, that addresses my concern to some extent.

You can always appeal to the IESG.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb