[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IANA document



Hi Paul,

I guess I'm concerned about two eventualities: (1) the expert, perhaps for personal reasons, treats one person's request differently than another's, or (2) the expert, perhaps due to a personal opinion, refuses to allow something that other "experts" view as a good idea. Do you think there are adequate contingencies in place to prevent either of these?

Of course, we all believe that if we were the designated expert, such a thing would never occur. But we are all human, so maybe it could at that. I guess that so long as there is some sort of reliable appeal process for such cases, that addresses my concern to some extent.

Scott



Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
At 12:27 PM -0800 2/3/04, Scott G. Kelly wrote:

Michael Richardson wrote:


I think that the consensus of the WG list is that all values should be a consistent "Expert Review". Please disagree.


As you wish :-) This is a difficult question, but given that the IETF is a political organization, effectively concentrating this power in one individual seems inappropriate.


The person is appointed by the IESG. They can be replaced at any time.

Personally, I liked the summary of allocation policies you first suggested, and thought your rationale was well founded. I think Jari raised some reasonable questions, but I don't think a case was made for giving the whole kit and kaboodle over to a benevolent dictator.


These are assignments to IANA, not protocol additions.

There is much to be said for public review and consensus.


Exactly right. It is quite reasonable for the IPsec community to ask the IESG to make sure that the IKEv2 IANA reviewer does everything in public, and even asks for comments on each action. This is a trivial task (mailing lists and web sites, you know), and would certainly make it so that if the reviewer said "no" to something, people who cared would know immediately to talk to the IESG.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium