Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-02

From: "McCann Peter-A001034" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:50:00 -0500

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-02
Reviewer: Peter J. McCann
Review Date: 23 February 2009
IETF LC End Date: 23 February 2009
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready with nits, if the IESG wants to change the IANA
considerations for H.248.

Major issues:

This document inserts an expert review procedure in the allocation
policy for new H.248 packages/error codes/service change/profiles.
This is probably a good thing but I have not been following the
history of the H.248 effort so I'm not aware of any problems that
have occurred under the existing allocation policies.  The IESG 
should weigh carefully whether the allocation policy really needs
changing.

Minor issues:

In a couple of places the document gives special treatment to
"recognized standards bodies."  How does a standards body become
"recognized" by the IETF?  Should we specify that a liaison relationship
must be in place?

Section 4.2 states that a specification is required for review by
the designated expert, but it seems to allow that this specification
isn't publicly available.  Should there be a requirement at least for
public packages that the specification be public?

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 1:
OLD:
   Given this situation, it is appropriate that the H.248/Package
   Package definition 
NEW:
   Given this situation, it is appropriate that the H.248/Package
   definition 

Section 4.2:
OLD:
   2) The package requester shall provide a contact name, email and
   postal addresses for that contact shall be specified. 
NEW:
   2) The package requester shall provide a contact name, and an email
and
   postal address for that contact shall be specified. 

OLD:
   provided available for review
NEW:
   provided and available for review

OLD:
   5) Package names are allocated on a first come-first served if all
   other conditions are met.
NEW:
   5) Package names are allocated on a first come-first served basis if
all
   other conditions are met.

Section 5.1:
OLD:
   shall forward to received information
NEW:
   shall forward the received information

Section 5.2:
OLD:
   On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward
   to received information (i.e. the Error Code text (Specification
   required) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See section 4.3).
NEW:
   On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward
   the received information (i.e. the Error Code text and required
specification)
   to the IESG appointed expert for review (See section 4.3).
   
Section 5.3:
OLD:
   On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward
   to received information (i.e. the Service Change Reason text
   (Specification required) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See
   section 4.4).
NEW:
   On the request for an Service Change Reason registration, the IANA
shall forward
   the received information (i.e. the Service Change Reason text and
   required specification) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See
   section 4.4).

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:25:16 -0700

Christian, could you take a look at the minor issues & nits and submit  
a draft to resolve theses - if some of them don't need to be changed,  
just sort that on this email thread.

Peter, on the topic of the Major issue...

The existing procedures require the review to happen at IETF. Almost  
all the work on this is actually happening at ITU right now so we are  
trying to make it easier for the ITU folks get the approvals they need  
done. We will select an expert reviewer that is closely involved with  
the ITU folks working on this as they are much more aware of all the  
ongoing work is and can catch conflicts, duplicated efforts etc.

This should make it easier to get things approved than the current  
process while at the same time helping improve the actual quality of  
the review.

Hope that helps.

Cullen