Re: IANA document

[Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>]

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