Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > This posture worries me. I've no doubt that you're doing a fine job as the DE > for the registries for which you're responsible, probably because you were > around during IPSec's development. But what about your successor(s)? Will > they have all of the context, background, and vision you have in order to > continue where you eventually leave off?
Designated experts are called experts, not automation robots following steps set in RFCs. My understanding has been that the reason we use experts is that then we do not need to give them exact rules to follow. Some of the RFCs gives so strict rules for experts to follow, that there really is no point of having expert involved at all, IANA could simply follow those same steps themselves. We currently have two experts for the IPsec registries (another one was added few years back). Also I would assume there is pool of about 5-10 people in the IETF that could easily work as an expert on the IPsec registries on the short notice (whether they would be willing or having time is another issue :-) On the other hand IPsec registries are easy, as we do have active group of people still working on it, meaning we have active mailing list and in case there are issues where experts are unsure, the experts can go and verify the decisions on the mail list. > The IETF, I'm coming to believe, has generally not done a good > enough job of succession planning. This is one place where we can > shore up that problem. > > I'll clear my DISCUSS, but I urge the working group and sponsoring > AD to give this some more thought. We currently have two experts for IPsec related IANA registries, so we have already given this some thought... -- kivi...@iki.fi _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
