Subject: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:09:23 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-22: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I find the new registries (not "registers", as in the titles of Sections 8.1
and 8.2) to be oddly defined, and would like to discuss that.

In Section 8, you seem to be giving instructions to the designated expert to
require an RFC.  You also seem to be telling the DE to consult the 6man working
group (or the residual mailing list, after the WG closes).  So when you say
"Expert Review", you're really saying at least "Expert Review and RFC
Required", and possibly "Expert Review and IETF Review".  I suggest that you
instead go with "IETF Review" and eliminate the need for a designated expert. 
If you want to additionally require specific review on the 6man list, you can
add that to the IETF Review, with something like "IETF Review, with at least a
two-week review on the 6man list," or some such.  (You could also consider
"Standards Action" if you want to require that the RFC be Standards Track and
not, say, Experimental or Informational.)  The point of having a DE is to
handle cases when you are NOT necessarily using RFCs to do the registrations,
and you don't have the consequent IETF review of things.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and here:

   The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in BCP
   26: "Private Use", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review",
   "Specification Required", "IETF Consensus", "Standards Action".

"IETF Consensus" is not defined in BCP 26; "IETF Review" is.