RE: Future Enumservice Registration Process

C would work for me as well.

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Peter Koch [mailto:[email protected]]
>  Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 11:55 AM
>  To: IETF ENUM WG
>  Subject: Re: [Enum] 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
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  enum mailing list
>  [email protected]
>  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum