Subject: [Enum] Future Enumservice Registration Process

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 13:41:35 +0100 (CET)

Hi all

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

One major issue in draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-05.txt seems to be, 
which process to apply for future Enum service registrations. I went 
through existing similar IANA processes and found at least four variants, 
how a registration document can be processed:

  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

In the current revision of draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-05.txt 
process B) is documented, however I am tending to replace it by process 
A), as this way the responsibilities are much more clear.

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"

What do you think about? In case there it no major opposition within the 
next 5 days, I'll rewrite draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-06.txt in 
favour of process A) and submit it for the Vancouver meeting.

cheers,
  Bernie

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:54:08 -0400

Bernie this is a excellent summary of the options.

Chair hat off ... I lean toward Plan B.

The registration proceeds directly to the expert review via a special email
list like we see with URI's. The expert review deals with it in a
"reasonable" time frame and forwards its report to the IESG for ultimate
approval.

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Bernie Hoeneisen [mailto:[email-masked]]
>  Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:42 AM
>  To: [email-masked]
>  Subject: [Enum] Future Enumservice Registration Process
>  
>  Hi all
>

---

From: Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 18:57:15 +0100

> "reasonable" time frame and forwards its report to the IESG for ultimate

As I had the pleasure of test-driving 2929bis, I don't like B.

The reason is that hard to guarantee SLAs from experts. In that
case, what happens if the exports don't react in the given time frame?
What happens in that case? 

When everything works as planned, all four processes are fine. 
The things we should have an eye on are the faultlines. What
happens if something doesn't go according to plan?

/ol
-- 
/ Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>, T: +43 1 5056416 - 33, F: - 933 \
| nic.at Internet Verwaltungs- und Betriebsgesellschaft m.b.H |
\ http://www.nic.at/  LG Salzburg, FN 172568b, Sitz: Salzburg /

---

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 23:42:03 +0000

Hi Folks,

(i)   Remember that the IESG decides who is to be designated as an  
expert.
       Thus they set up the pool of experts before any reviews even  
take place.
       Do they also have to assign an expert for each review as well  
before
       things begin? I think that options A & D assume that the IESG  
has too
       much time on its hands. Ha!

(ii)  I *hope* that your experience was a teething problem - looking  
at the
       comments, it seemed that a fair chunk of the early questions  
were asked
       for clarification from the WG that set up the 2929bis process  
rather
       being aimed at the draft authors. In effect, you were caught  
in the
       crossfire, and your expert couldn't progress until *those*  
questions
       were answered. That MAY be the price one pays for a less rigid  
process
       - it's initially chaotic. I would HOPE that we can learn from  
that.

(iii) <JOKE>
         Getting the expert's attention: bribery may work - it  
usually does.
         Have you considered employing said expert, or sponsoring an  
IETF meeting?
       </JOKE>
       Seriously, folks ...
       What do we expect of volunteers, especially ones who are  
assigned by someone
       else (based on that expert's availability) to review a draft?
       The expert so assigned may not have a lot of domain knowledge,  
and frankly
       may not all that interested in the environment that has driven  
a need for
       this registration.

(iv)  IMHO, there *has* to be a ML, and someone (who has close  
understanding of
       the kind of things that will come up in registrations) with  
the responsibility
       to select an appropriate sucker//////volunteer expert to  
review work when it
       is ready to be considered.

       The trick is - when is something "ready", who gets to decide,  
and how are they
       anointed so that they can convince one of a pool of designated  
experts to spend
       his or her own time on document review?

       Whoever it is, please don't upset him/her - your urgent bright  
idea may never
       get through the process.

all the best,
   Lawrence

---

From: Otmar Lendl <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:09:35 +0100

On 2007/11/05 00:11, lconroy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> expert. Thus they set up the pool of experts before any reviews even
> take place. Do they also have to assign an expert for each review as
> well before things begin? I think that options A & D assume that the
> IESG has too much time on its hands. Ha!

IMHO you need someone whose daily business is to shepherd processes.
Bug people into responsing, keeping track of procedures and deadlines,
in other words, be a bloody (but functional) bureaucracy.

I don't think the IESG is setup for such a job. Let them approve
the process and appoint the expert, but keep them off the critical
path for the actual process as far as possible.

The IANA sounds like a better choice to me, i.e. option C.

> (ii) I *hope* that your experience was a teething problem - looking at
> the comments, it seemed that a fair chunk of the early questions were
> asked for clarification from the WG that set up the 2929bis process
> rather being aimed at the draft authors. In effect, you were caught
> in the crossfire, and your expert couldn't progress until *those*
> questions were answered. That MAY be the price one pays for a less
> rigid process - it's initially chaotic. I would HOPE that we can learn
> from that.

I don't complain about my experience. It just exposed one design
criterium: Don't just plan how the process works when everybody
cooperates, but also what happens when someone is not doing his job.

> (iii) Seriously, folks ... What do we expect of
> volunteers, especially ones who are assigned by someone else (based
> on that expert's availability) to review a draft? The expert so
> assigned may not have a lot of domain knowledge, and frankly may not
> all that interested in the environment that has driven a need for this
> registration.

Yep: that's why the registration procedure needs to contain more
than

* A submits proposal to X
* X does Y within Z days
* If Y approves, B will publish 
* ...

Like any good programming, we need to check for error conditions when 
designing the algorithm:

* A submits proposal to X
* X does Y within Z days. On timeout, X can appeal to ...
* If Y approves, B will publish 
* ...

/ol

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:54:55 +0100

Bernie,

{sorry, missed the subject change}

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

oh, what happened to the Swiss clock/calendar?

>  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.

> RFC 3761 states: "Enumservice registrations needs to be Standards Track, 

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

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:47:55 -0500

C would work for me as well.

>  From: Peter Koch [mailto:[email-masked]]
>  Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 11:55 AM
>  To: IETF ENUM WG
>  Subject: Re: [Enum] Future Enumservice Registration Process
>  
>  Bernie,
>