Response to Part 1 of the appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-08-17 This is the IESG response to Part 1 of the appeal by JFC Morfin sent on 2006-08-17 and posted at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/jefsey-appeal-to-iesg-08-17-2006.pdf This was considered during the IESG teleconference on the same date. Part 1 of the appeal is summarized as: "Appeal against the decision to consider a request to the RFC Editor to expedite the publication of draft-ietf-ltru-registry, draft-ietf-ltru-matching and draft-ietf-ltru-initial" followed by various arguments. As discussed in the July 10 response to the appeal from Dean Anderson against draft-ietf-grow-anycast, the appeals process is designed to handle disputes that cannot be handled through other means. The IESG cannot come up with a situation where it would be appropriate to appeal the consideration of some action before a decision is made; this is certainly not such a case. Instead, participants should provide input to that consideration. We interpret this appeal in that light: we interpret part 1 of the appeal as arguments why the IESG should choose to delay a decision to expedite this BCP. The IESG makes such requests regularly when another SDO's publication schedule requires the ability to cite a forthcoming RFC normatively. There is nothing exceptional or discriminatory about doing so in the case of Unicode. It would not be sufficient for Unicode to refer generically to BCP 47; the reference needs to be to specific text and hence to the RFCs. We note that RFC 2026 does not require appeals to have suspensive effect. If an appeal against the approval of a published RFC were to succeed, that RFC could be reclassified as Historic. We find no merit in the arguments in Part 1 of the appeal, which is dismissed. [The response to Part 2 of the appeal will be published later.] _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
