Subject: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 IANA policy

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:30:23 +0200

> I think there  was a pretty clear consensus that we  didn't 
> want any process which would allow for mischief and  delays 
> on the part of the "expert".  The problem is that  once you 
> make the approval a  matter of someone's judgment, you've 
> opened the door to abuse.  We can say that the bar should be 
> low, but we have no way to enforce the position of the bar.  

How about "expert with timeout" 
(AKA "expert in denial") ?

We set the bar low (i.e. explicitly tell the expert that the only
criterion is that there be a description of some application
that does not presently have a code point)
and if the expert does not respond in time T
then IANA takes this is an approval.

Y(J)S

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:38:54 -0400

As long as the WG exists, we have expert review.  What happens after
the WG ceases to exist?

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:47:30 +0200

I asked Scott Bradner the same questions a while back, he said
that there should be a "care taker" appointed to fulfill these
kind of tasks. On the other hand we failed to find any documention
whatsoever on this.

Scott, any changes?

-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  [email-masked]
                                            [email-masked]

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:58:45 -0400

> if  the expert  does not  respond in  time T  then IANA  takes this  is an
> approval. 

This may seem simple enough in theory, but I'm not at all sure that IANA has
the processes to support this.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:00:05 +0100

> As long as the WG exists, we have expert review.  What happens after

My assumption is as follows. Ultimately the owner for all expert
reviews are the IESG, who in turn delegate to the relavent AD, who
in turn delagates to the group or individual with the expertise
to understand the issues.

I would imagine that if they did not know who the expert was
IANA would write to the IESG to ask how to proceed.

- Stewart

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:02:18 -0400 (EDT)

same as before - if the IANA considerations call for expert review
than an espert needs to be designated and a care-taker appointed
by the IESG with help from the WG is a good idea

Scott

---
>From [email-masked]  Mon Jul 18 10:50:55 2005
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:47:30 +0200
From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Organization: Acreo AB
To: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Cc: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>,
	Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
	pwe3 <[email-masked]>, Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 IANA policy
	Content analysis details:   (0.0 points, 5.0 required)
	 pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------

Scott, any changes?

-- 
Loa Andersson

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:51:59 +0200

>the processes to support this.
In fact IANA does have the processes in place to support contacting one 
or more individuals as Experts. They do not have the processes to be an 
expert themselves in any way, which is why they there is a procedure for 
assigning Experts for them to rely upon.

- Mark

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:03:28 -0400

> or more individuals as Experts. 

That's not  what I was  questioning.  I don't  think they have a  process in
place for  timing out the request  to the expert and  granting the codepoint
automatically if the timer expires before the expert responds.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:35:12 -0400

> IANA would write to the IESG to ask how to proceed.

That is exactly what happens. And in practice, the IESG chooses
experts after consulting with the logical people, e.g., WG chairs.

Thomas

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:37:13 -0400

> As long as the WG exists, we have expert review.  What happens after

Actually, it's somewhat more complicated than that. You might want to
look at draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt, which
covers this all in gory detail.

Thomas

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:39:14 -0400

> automatically if the timer expires before the expert responds. 

That's right. Because some people (myself included) think it's bad
policy to approve something by default when an artifical deadline
can't be met (e.g., while, say, an expert is on vacation.)

Thomas