Yes, it is true that Specification Required documents also get expert
review. But I stand by my perspective that if we don't need a stable
specification, then we don't ask for one. If we are asking for one, it
seems to me that an I-D does not meet the requirement, as while the
content of the document is stable, the context of the document and the
expected implementation is not stable.
Yours,
Joel
On 12/10/2024 4:40 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 10. Dec 2024, at 22:32, Joel Halpern <jmh.dir...@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
Where we disagree seems to be in the reading of RFC 8126. If we want to give the Expert latitude
to decide if the registry entry is allowed based on an I-D, we use the "Expert Review"
branch. If we want to require a specification, we use the "Specification Required"
branch. If we want to require both, then we specify both.
That appears to echo a common misconception.
The requirements for Specification Required are a clearly defined as a proper
superset of those for Expert Review.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126#section-4.5
4.5. Expert Review
For the Expert Review policy, review and approval by a designated
expert (see Section 5) is required. While this does not necessarily
require formal documentation, information needs to be provided with
the request for the designated expert to evaluate. […]
4.6. Specification Required
For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a
designated expert (see Section 5) is required, and the values and
their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily
available public specification, in sufficient detail so that
interoperability between independent implementations is possible.
This policy is the same as Expert Review, with the additional
requirement of a formal public specification. In addition to the
normal review of such a request, the designated expert will review
the public specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently
stable and permanent, and sufficiently clear and technically sound to
allow interoperable implementations. […]
“Permanent” and “readily available” are the requirements on the form, which
(archived) I-Ds clearly fulfill in one of the best possible ways.
But as written, Expert Review IANA registries do not require a document.,
Correct, as long as there is “information” (which might be transferred in a
phone call, or might not be more than an ASCII name given to a port number).
Is all we are arguing about allowing an informational reference to I-Ds in Expert Review
registries? (The earlier email I saw seemed to be about "Specification
Required" registries.
I believe we are specifically talking about Specification Required, but note
that Expert Review registries [ranges] also can (and mostly will) include a
Reference column.
Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
