John,
On 2012-06-12 19:38, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 19:13 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> The above is at odds with standardization. The last reason
>>> does not apply for Expert review.
>> I don't understand that statement. RFC 5226 says, in Section 2
>> about "Why Management of a Namespace May Be Necessary":
>>
>> " A third, and perhaps most important, consideration concerns
>> potential impact on the interoperability of unreviewed
>> extensions."
>>
>> One of the specific considerations for designated experts in
>> section 3.3 is
>>
>> " - the extension would cause problems with existing
>> deployed systems."
>>
>> It seems clear that interoperability is a primary concern for
>> any expert review.
>
> Brian, Subramanian,
>
> I've with Barry on this. The details of the expectations of an
> expert reviewer, including the thresholds for approval, should
> be specified in whatever document sets up the particular
> registry. One size does not fit all; "Expert Review" is a
> designation of a mechanism and not a set of criteria.
I completely agree. My point was only that the baseline set by
RFC 5226 is clear that interoperability is a criterion. The
details vary case by case and should be written down.
I also agree with what I think Randy meant - the designated
expert shouldn't be afraid to say no (or yes) in dubious
cases; that's why we designate an expert...
Brian
>
> We should, IMO, do two things in this area:
>
> (1) When a document specifies "Expert Review" for a registry, it
> should be required to spell out the criteria the Expert is
> supposed to use, at least to the degree that isn't obvious. If
> it doesn't, that should be grounds for "DISCUSS until fixed".
>
> (2) If it turns out that an Expert for a particular registry is
> not behaving as people expect, part of the process for getting
> that fixed (or even complaining about it), should be to see if
> the registry-creating documents are clear about procedures and
> criteria. If they are not, an effort to update those criteria
> would be a useful way to discuss the issues and not the
> individual expert. Of course, Experts who knowingly violate
> clear criteria should be summarily fired -- but I think we can
> trust that to the IESG and note that it has almost never been
> necessary.
>
> john
>
>
> .
>
