Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-21.txt

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 05:50:03PM +0200, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:

> We just published an interim revision (actually the state we were to 

thanks, Bernie et al.

> publish already during IETF-78). It fully addresses all DISCUSSes, except 
> David Harrington's, which needed clarification. In the meantime David 
> clarified his DISCUSS and we are currently working on it. We aim to
> resolve this last DISCUSS soon.

there's basicly two changes I could spot from the diff:

1) The draft now aims at "Standards Track" instead of BCP.  This appears
   at least "interesting" for a process document. What is the motivation
   behind this?

2) The expert review process was carefully designed to give guidance to
   both the expert and the requester.  The updated draft version now
   declares this non-normative, making it harder for the expert to
   insist on certain elements.  I understand from partially following
   the discussion in the tracker that there were concerns redefining
   or overruling RFC 5226, but there is precedent for this sort
   of mandatory review guidelines and it is also appropriate to maintain
   a level of quality and interoperable specifications that fit the
   architecture.  Several changes in the normative language seem
   acceptable or even appropriate, but the general relax clause is
   a step too far.  See Section 3.2 of RFC 5226: "Ideally, the designated
   expert follows specific review criteria as documented with the protocol
   that creates or uses the namespace."

-Peter