I agree with Tommy. Selecting an expert who is able to recognize when wider review might help is a far lower bar than the one Ray suggests might be necessary.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022, at 05:29, Tommy Pauly wrote: > If this space is not extensible from non-IETF RFCs, we’ll have missed > the mark. The space is designed to be large (65K) to allow new work to > easily use this extensibility. We don’t need to be too conservative > with this space. > > I disagree that there wouldn’t be good experts — we have authors of the > document who have seen it through, and we have more people using this > RR and gaining expertise. > > Expert review is the right balance here. > > Tommy > >> On Mar 22, 2022, at 9:24 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 9:10 AM Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote: >>> I am concerned that the set of Expert Reviewers necessary to handle SVCB >>> needs to have both expert DNS experience *and* detailed knowledge of the >>> SVCB model for this to work. >>> >>> I am not sure there's anybody who fits that criteria. >> >> Specification Required also assumes a community that can produce them, which >> presumably contains the right experts. >> >> Are we actually moving toward IETF Review here? >> >> -MSK >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
