Skip to main content

IETF conflict review for draft-lanthaler-profile-registry
conflict-review-lanthaler-profile-registry-00

Discuss


Yes


No Objection

(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Richard Barnes)
(Spencer Dawkins)

No Record


Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"

Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2013-12-18) Unknown
Looking at the IESG reviews a type 3 or 4 response seems appropriate until the chain of authority is agreed.

3) Because this is ISE requiring the IESG to take on an additional task

4) Because it cannot be current procedure for ISE to require IESG to appoint and manage a DE

I have no objection to the contents of the document and will clear when there is agreement between ISE, IANA and IESG
on how to manage this process.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes) Yes
Yes (2014-01-21) Unknown
The -05 version of the document changes the registration policy to FCFS, with a specification recommended.  This resolves my issue with having the document in the Independent Stream, and I'm happy with the "no conflict" message.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Discuss) Yes
Yes (2014-01-21) Unknown
Latest version makes the registry First Come First Served. That's fine.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-12-19) Unknown
No objection: I trust the three DISCUSS holders to resolve this issue.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-12-18) Unknown
I agree with Adrian's observation that the appointment of a DE is not our responsibility and that observation needs to be made clear to the ISE and IANA.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-12-18) Unknown
I'm with Pete.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-12-19) Unknown
There are enough DISCUSSes already so I won't add to it.

I would note though that if the ISE (or anyone else) did end up cutting
a deal with IANA, then it'd be really crappy if that registry appeared on
IANA's web site below [1] which should be "our" registries. (Having 
said that I've no idea how pure that distinction is.)

So can we also clarify that the above is the case if that's not already
clear as part of the resolution of the DISCUSSes.

   [1] https://www.iana.org/protocols
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-12-16) Unknown
I don't object to moving forward with this document, whether Adrian's astute observation is handled or not.   The reason I don't object is that as Barry says, we don't have standing to object.   It's entirely up to IANA to figure out how to deal with this.   I think they would be within their rights to reject the request.

One way we _could_ address this would be to add an IESG note saying that the IESG is aware of the issue here, and has agreed to take on responsibility for doing expert review at the request of the ISE (assuming that the ISE is willing to make such a request).   I do not care one way or the other whether such a note is added, but it seems that it might be a sensible way forward, if we agree that the alternative is a likely unproductive attempt to navigate uncharted waters.

It would be equally appropriate to cast caution to the wind and let the ISE attempt to navigate these waters, with our blessing.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Record
No Record (2013-12-16) Unknown
For the record, this is the email I sent on the thread for Barry's Discuss...

Interesting problem.

I can see why the "specification required" part of Specification Required would be attractive to the authors.

Barry, in the 5226bis work, would you consider creating "First Come First Served with Specification"? I believe that might be useful for such cases.

In this case, I don't see the harm in appointing and maintaining a DE so long as one can be found (which, to be honest, is how all other DE registries work). The thing that does result is that the IESG comes on to the appeals path for the actions of the DE.

Ah! The penny just dropped as I was typing.
If this is with the ISE and is asking for IANA action then who is actually giving IANA the instructions? 
Not the IETF, I think.
The IANA is allowed to manage any code space it wants outside of those it manages for the IETF, but that is not our business.
So the use of 5226 terms would be "for convenience of similar terminology" and the necessary DE would not be any of our business.

So it would not be a case of the IESG refusing to appoint a DE, but it would be up to IANA to work out how to appoint a DE for a registry that is not an IETF registry.