Re: comments/change control (Was: IETF ldapbis WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapbis-iana-04.txt)

[Ryan Moats <rmoats@lemurnetworks.net>]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 03:35:36PM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
| At 02:07 PM 2001-11-29, Ryan Moats wrote:
| >| >2. In section 5.3, there a reference to a change control request.
| >| >It is not clear from the rest of the document what the process is for
| >| >the change control request triggering a specification update or IESG
| >| >asserting ownership. I think this needs to be addressed to provide some
| >| >guidance to requesters (both for initial requests and subsequent requests).
| >| 
| >| I think the last sentence of 5.3 needs to be replaced with:
| >|   For registrations owned by the IESG, the objections SHOULD
| >|   be addressed by initiating a request for Expert Review.      
| >| 
| >|   The form of these requests is ad hoc but MUST include the 
| >|   specific objections to be reviewed and SHOULD contain
| >|   (directly or by reference) materials supporting the
| >|   objections.
| >| 
| >| Does this address your concern(s)?
| >
| >Partially.  In addition to the above, I got lost in the following scenario:
| >scenario:
| >
| >Somebody registeres an "e-" or "x-" item, so its owned by the register.
| >Somebody else makes a change request on that item (this looks to be allowed)
| >
| >Now what happens?  If the owner doesn't make the requested change, at what
| >point does/should IESG take ownership?
| 
| Comments are handled per 5.3.  Upon Expert Review comments can be
| attached to the registration.  But this doesn't change ownership
| of the registration or the registration itself.

While this makes sense for Standards Track and Expert Review registrations.
I don't see why Expert Review is necessary for changes to First Come First
Serve registrations, when they weren't necessary to the initial FCFS
registration?

| Changes to a registration are handled per 5.2.  The IESG can
| assert ownership at any point when it believes changes are
| necessary and the registered owner is not willing or able to
| make them.

What I'm looking for is some guidance to the register of the "e-" or
"x-" information as to "how quickly" they need to process change requests.
The more I think about it, the more I'm bothered that a FCFS registration
can be taken away because the owner doesn't make a change.

If I compare them with the OID allocation model, there seems to be
a higher bar here than there (I don't know of any procedure for 
undelegating an OID arc).  I'm not sure that's a good idea.

As a counter proposal, I'm ok with the IESG assert ownership of a
Expert Review registration because changes are necessary and the
registered owner is not willing or able to make them.

I think the FCFS review/update should be left to the individuals.

Ryan