Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp-07: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-ext-registry-epp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Section 2.1.1 The IESG should appoint a primary designated expert and a small number of individuals (perhaps 3 - 5) to serve as backup designated experts as described in Section 5.2 of [RFC8126]. The primary designated expert is responsible for conducting all reviews requested by IANA. The secondary designated experts are responsible for conducting reviews as a consensus-based group if the primary designated expert is unavailable. In cases where a registration decision could be perceived as creating a conflict of interest for a particular Designated Expert, that Expert SHOULD defer to the judgment of the other Experts. The designated experts MUST use the existing regext mailing list ([email protected]) or its successor for public discussion of registration requests. This language above is a slight reinterpretation of Section 5.2, RFC8126. Is that really necessary as the following are underspecified: -- What is a “consensus-based group” (e.g., rough consensus, majority, unanimity) -- When should a DE NOT recuse if there is a COI? -- Is there a requirement being set on the IESG that it has to approved more than one DE here (as the language reads, the “IESG should …”)? ** Section 2.1.1 Should they decline to do so, perceived similarity SHOULD NOT be a sufficient reason for rejection as long as all other requirements are met. When is “perceived similarity” a sufficient reason to reject, as the guidance says similarity is sometimes adequate justification (since MUST NOT is not used)? ** Section 2.2.3 IESG Approval (Section 4.10 of [RFC8126]) is REQUIRED to remove or deactivate registrations created through IETF consensus. What does it mean to “deactivate” a registration? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Section 2.1.1. Are these three statement providing unique normative guidance? The designated experts MUST use the existing regext mailing list ([email protected]) or its successor for public discussion of registration requests. … The results of the evaluation MUST be shared via email with the registrant and the regext mailing list or its successor. … The designated experts MUST make an explicit decision and that decision MUST be shared via email with the registrant and the regext mailing list or its successor. ** Section 2.2.3 On receipt of a registration request, IANA will initiate review by the designated expert(s), who will evaluate the request using the criteria in Section 2.1.1 in consultation with the current working group mailing list focused on the development of EPP extensions if such working group exists. Why is this text needed. It is restating what IANA already does for “Specification Required”. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
