Subject: [Megaco] Expert review of requests for new packages

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:45:22 -0400

It may be a bit late to get anything done about this question in v3, but 
perhaps all we need is a consensus agreement on the list.

I am the designated expert for review of requests to register new 
packages with IANA.  The question is what criteria I apply to new public 
packages.  Is the intent that:

(a) I ensure that the formal requirements as currently specified in 
Megaco/H.248 documentation are satisfied, or

(b) do I have the responsibility to require clarification of substantive 
items in the document that seem unclear, or

(c) do I have authority to at least question the content of proposed 
packages in a broader way?

If my responsibility goes beyond (a), groups that are preparing 
Megaco/H.248 packages will have to get IANA and thus me involved before 
their documents are set in concrete.

Looking forward to your comments.

Tom Taylor

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:42:33 +1000

Hello Tom,

I think your role should be a least to ensure a).
With regards to b) and c) I had hoped that standards groups who are developing 
packages liaise with SG16 to see that their packages are correct and not 
duplicating functionality. I don't think this role should be left to one person 
nor do I think that it is IANAs role to police the functionality defined in 
packages as they are not a technical body.

Of course given your considerable history with H.248 I think its more than 
reasonable that you can personally question the merits of a package but I don't 
think this should be linked to assigning a packageID.

Regards, Christian

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:26:17 -0400

If there are no further comments from the list I am happy to take (a) as 
my clarified mandate.

Christian Groves wrote:
> With regards to b) and c) I had hoped that standards groups who are 
> developing packages liaise with SG16 to see that their packages are 
> correct and not duplicating functionality. I don't think this role 
> should be left to one person nor do I think that it is IANAs role to 
> police the functionality defined in packages as they are not a technical 
> body.
> 
> Of course given your considerable history with H.248 I think its more 
> than reasonable that you can personally question the merits of a package 
> but I don't think this should be linked to assigning a packageID.
> 
> Regards, Christian
> 
> Tom Taylor wrote:
> 
>> Megaco/H.248 packages will have to get IANA and thus me involved 
>> before their documents are set in concrete.
>>