Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-17: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The first question of the shepherd writeup was not completely answered. Question 18, which is particularly relevant here, was not answered at all. Section 7.1 creates an IANA registry with "Expert Review" rules. Of such a registry, Section 4.5 of RFC 8126 says, among other things: The required documentation and review criteria, giving clear guidance to the designated expert, should be provided when defining the registry. This document doesn't do so. After discussion, I'm told this is typical for IPSec registries; it's just understood that whoever might be assigned as a DE for this new registry will have the knowledge, context, and vision to do a good job. I have some broad concerns about how much our succession planning in general needs improvement, and I think this sort of thing is one aspect of that problem. I urge the WG and the AD to give this some more thought. Thanks for including Section 8. This is always helpful to read. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
