Re: Future Enumservice Registration Process

Bernie,

{sorry, missed the subject change}

> *** Please comment until Wednesday, Nov 05 ***

oh, what happened to the Swiss clock/calendar?

>  A) Author -> IESG -> Expert Review -> IESG -> IANA -> Publication
>  B) Author -> Expert Review -> IESG -> IANA -> Publication
>  C) Author -> IANA -> Expert Review -> IANA -> Publication
>  D) Author -> IESG -> IANA -> Expert Review -> IANA -> Publication

Since "Expert Review" is to appear in IANA considerations kind of to avoid the
standards track, of the four options only (C) makes sense to me.  Of course,
the IESG is free to consult "Experts" (well, that's also what Last Calls are
for), but requiring this approach doesn't fit our usual processes.

> In case registrations should be made without IESG looking at it, C) 
> could be the choice. Maybe for experimental Enumservice registrations this
> makes sense. If we want to apply such a simple process for normal 
> Enumservice registrations, a major change in RFC 3761 is needed, as 
> RFC 3761 states: "Enumservice registrations needs to be Standards Track, 
> Experimental or BCP"

Yes, but that's what these guidelines are all about.  Get rid of standards
track, otherwise the whole "Expert Review" design isn't upon the WG to
decide.

And, as Lawrence said, the IESG selects the expert(s) and 2434bis also
contains text to deal with expert overload, timeouts and the like.

-Peter