Document:  draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-12.txt 
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern [joel@stevecrocker.com]
Review Date:  Saturday 10/8/2005 2:23 PM CST
Telechat Date:  Thursday 10/13/2005

Summary: This document is probably ready for publication as a Proposed 
Standard.

Reading the instructions here, I believe as written they conform to
RFC 2434. However, personally, I find the descriptions here 
somewhat insufficient. There are a number of registered values with 
a short description and no reference as to where one would find 
the full description.  While one is allowed to set up a registry 
this way, it seems a bad idea.  A registry  ought to serve two 
functions:
1) Prevent collision
2) allow the reader to determine the meaning of the code points

Some of the items include RFC references.
Many of the items registered here do not include such indications.
And the text for future registrations does not even ask for such 
pointers.  (And by having low length limits, it may even be difficult
to include useful references.)
Shouldn't the FCFS particularly at least allow for a pointer
to the meaning  so that folks can try to re-use points?

The other aspect that strikes me is that this document provides 
for extensive "expert review" with absolutely no indication of 
what the expert would be looking for.  I realize (and agree with) 
the goal that an expert reviewer should use his judgement.  
But, based on observed history, some indication of what he is 
to judge would seem helpful.

Put differently, both of these concerns can be summarized by 
saying that I find our vague handling of registries discomforting.