On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 2:24 AM Tero Kivinen <kivi...@iki.fi> wrote: > Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker writes: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Section 7.1 creates an IANA registry with "Expert Review" rules. Of > such a > > registry, Section 4.5 of RFC 8126 says, among other things: > > > > The required documentation and review criteria, giving clear guidance > > to the designated expert, should be provided when defining the > > registry. > > > > This document doesn't do so. Is that guidance available somewhere else, > or > > should some be added here? > > This is common in the IPsec documents. The working group has assumed > that experts are experts and they know what to do without being > explictly instructed to do so.... > > As an IANA Expert for most of the IPsec related registries, I hope > that I have been able to do that job in a such way that other people > have found that good enough (at least I have not heard complains about > that). > > [...] >
This posture worries me. I've no doubt that you're doing a fine job as the DE for the registries for which you're responsible, probably because you were around during IPSec's development. But what about your successor(s)? Will they have all of the context, background, and vision you have in order to continue where you eventually leave off? The IETF, I'm coming to believe, has generally not done a good enough job of succession planning. This is one place where we can shore up that problem. I'll clear my DISCUSS, but I urge the working group and sponsoring AD to give this some more thought. -MSK
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
