RE: IANA document

[Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>]

Note that since "Experts" are normally appointed by and serve at the pleasure
of the the IESG, as a practical matter their decisions, at least negative
ones, are effecitvely subject to appeal to the IESG.

"Public review and consensus" would be to make everything "IETF Consensus",
a ponderous process.

It is also good to keep in mind that we are in no way limited to what
RFC 2434 says. Those were intended to be examples. Realistic useful
examples but just examples nevertheless. We are free to say "RFC required"
or "Both Publication AND Expert Review required" or whatever we think
appropriate (and the IESG will approve).

Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com [mailto:owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com] On Behalf Of Scott G. Kelly
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 3:27 PM
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re: IANA document

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.

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.

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

Scott