Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-precis-framework-16: 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 http://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: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I will move to a strong "yes" on this, once we have some discussion of the registry defined in Section 9.1. The registry created in Section 9.1 is very odd indeed. I guess IANA is expected to assume that the format of the registry will look like the non-normative table in the appendix, but Section 9.1 doesn't say what the format of the registry will be. In general, I see that IANA has asked several questions in its review, and those questions haven't been responded to (and, unusually, the IANA review is in the IESG mailing list archive but *not* in the document history in the datatracker). They should be given a response. But the real oddity here is that the specification of the registry involves an *enormous* startup cost for the designated expert, *and* requires that the DE be appointed and start her work immediately. Normally, IANA takes the required actions as soon as the document's approval is announced, but in this case they will have to wait for the DE to be appointed and to derive the entire content of the registry. It seems to me that the right way to have handled this would have been for the working group to have engaged the appropriate experts and made the table Appendix A *be* the initial contents of the registry, rather than explicitly denouncing Appendix A and leaving it as a seemingly quite onerous startup task that will delay the IANA actions indefinitely. Why was it done this way, and what is the plan to get the registry content specified in a reasonable time? Should approval of the document wait for that content to be specified? Or are we really expecting to approve the document with the content of the registry left open? _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
