[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf
Subject:    Re: Last Call:
From:       Cullen Jennings <fluffy () cisco ! com>
Date:       2011-01-31 16:13:57
Message-ID: F2152494-8C79-4A0F-951F-B3DB1D274A61 () cisco ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


On Jan 31, 2011, at 8:14 , Paul Hoffman wrote:

> On 1/31/11 7:06 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> > But I see the point you're raising. The document should somewhere say
> > that "Expert Review" is the procedure used for assignment requests
> > made directly to IANA, whereas for documents on the IETF Stream,
> > "IETF Consensus" is sufficient to make the assignment. In other
> > words, no expert review doesn't really need to happen for those,
> > since IETF Review and IESG Approval are at least equivalent.
> > 
> > Did I get that right?
> 
> Yes, that would greatly reduce the concern about where and when (and how
> often!) the review would happen.
> 

Hmm ... I don't agree that solves the issue. 

Well lets say the request was coming from 3GPP for a protocol they designed - why \
should IANA be able to tell them no but IETF yes. 

I think the policy issue here is fairly clear. We do not have consensus that in all \
cases that one should not have a second port for security (I'm basing this assertion \
on Magnus read of WG consensus and my read of IETF LC consensus). Therefore that \
should not be a ground for the expert reviewer (or IANA) to reject the registration. \
The document needs to be updated to make that clear or it does not reflect consensus. \
If the authors of the draft want to propose text for conditions when it would be ok \
to reject a second port for security purposes and see if they can get consensus for \
that text, that seems perfectly reasonable. 

I'm sure that some people believe the draft, by using the word "strives", actually \
means that this is not a grounds for rejection but given the push back from Lars and \
Joe, I believe that "strives" means that the decision is up to Joe. Given things \
could be read either ways, I think it's fair to ask for the draft to clarify this. 





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]