Todd, Harald and all,
I agree with you here Todd, unfortunately and sadly. Hence
perhaps leaving the stakeholders/users, most of which will be
unaware and many will be unnecessarily taken advantage of
from time to time...
todd glassey wrote:
> The real problem Jeff, is that there is no want of a true consensus here, or
> a more formalized description of the vetting process or what is involved in
> it. The cost in making the IETF what the descriptions of it paint it as,
> would in fact break it financially with the current operations and funding
> models. So what you are really asking for (*and reasonably so by the way) is
> a total rethinking of the bigger-picture issue of what actually constitutes
> vetting and the advancement of an initiative.
>
> There is also this underlying concept that all members of a WG ***must***
> participate in the vetting of each and every project or initiative that is
> vetted within a WG's operations and this is also completely untrue except in
> the rare case where a WG only has ONE initiative.
>
> Todd
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@Alvestrand.no>
> Cc: "IETF" <ietf@ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org>; <poised@lists.tislabs.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 10:27 PM
> Subject: Re: What review is required for "IETF Consensus"?
>
> > Harald and all,
> >
> > I "Guess" that a IETF consensus really means whatever you Harald
> > says it means much like what consensus meant while you were
> > Chair of the DNSO GA. But to be honest, no consensus can be
> > determined unless it is measured, which means a VOTE must be
> > held amongst IETF participants. Perish the thought, eh Harald?! >;)
> >
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >
> > > Thread B from my previous message..... this is being CCed to the POISED
> > > list, for reasons that may be obvious after reading the message; for
> POISED
> > > subscribers - this is followup to an IETF list thread.
> > >
> > > Question:
> > >
> > > What review process must the IESG take before taking the action to block
> or
> > > allow publication of such an internet-draft (ie "what does IETF
> Consensus
> > > mean")?
> > >
> > > This is not written in RFC 2434.
> > > Some tactics that have been used in the past to gather information for
> the
> > > IESG's decision include:
> > >
> > > - "It's obviously OK". Approved WG document, or competently written
> > > documentation from subject matter experts, reviewed by people with
> > > competence on the specific registry. The IESG looks at it and thinks
> that
> > > it's obvioiusly right. Example: application/ogg, documented in
> > > draft-walleij-ogg-mediatype.
> > >
> > > - Subject matter expert group review. For instance, posting to the DHC
> WG
> > > asking for opinions on a DHCP extension. WG chairs' feedback will carry
> a
> > > lot of weight.
> > >
> > > - IETF Last Call for Informational/Experimental, with the IESG
> evaluating
> > > the feedback.
> > >
> > > In all cases, the IESG has to evaluate; there's no other established
> body
> > > to do it. "The buck stops here".
> > >
> > > Among the cases to consider:
> > >
> > > - Everyone approves. Go for it.
> > >
> > > - Nobody cares. No comments; the IESG will usually decide that nobody
> saw
> > > any looming danger to the Internet, and allow the registration.
> > >
> > > - Serious objections. The comments clearly indicate that the
> registration
> > > would be harmful to the Internet (and how), and the IESG agrees with
> that
> > > evaluation. The IESG will refuse.
> > >
> > > - Incompetent or incomplete document. The IESG will usually object to
> this
> > > on its own - without documentation clear enough to determine whether
> this
> > > is OK or harmful, it would be remiss of the IESG to let the document go
> > > forward even to an IETF Last Call.
> > > We can't claim IETF consensus on something we can't understand.
> > >
> > > - Dissension within the IETF. Like in the case of a WG, the IESG has to
> > > evaluate the arguments on their merits; obviously the proposers think
> that
> > > the registration should be allowed, and opposition without a rational
> basis
> > > should no more be allowed to block this registration than it should be
> > > allowed to block WG progress. But as the saying goes - "this is why you
> get
> > > the big bucks".
> > > Among the things to consider here is that the determination must be made
> in
> > > a timely fashion - sometimes there are reasons why letting debate rage
> for
> > > another 6 months doesn't seem like an attractive option.
> > >
> > > Questions for the audience:
> > >
> > > - should this description, or something like it, go into
> > > draft-iesg-procedures?
> > > - are there guidelines that the IESG should use when trying to determine
> > > the right outcome in the "dissension" case?
> > > - does this debate belong on the POISED list, together with the
> discussion
> > > of the IESG charter and the IESG procedures?
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Harald
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > ================================================================
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
> >
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801