On 3/26/04 at 4:21 PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
A big part of the problem is that the proposed policy would only allow IESG to object to the publication of a document in the case where there was an active working group in an area, or where the document would violate a pre-established procedure. Since working groups are typically chartered to work on a narrow topic and for a limited time, at any given time many technical subject areas are not covered by a working group, and many new protocols would not conflict with any particular working group even if they would conflict with (for instance) the operation of established protocols.
No, there is one other item mentioned which covers this case:
o The IESG thinks that this document extends an IETF protocol in a
way that requires IETF review, and should therefore not be
published without IETF review.If the IESG thinks that a protocol "would conflict with the operation of established protocols", they can recommend rejection on that basis.
And while the RFC Editor could (and I assume does) enlist volunteers to assist it in such review, this amounts to an approval process for IETF publications that isn't accountable to the IETF community, not even with a noncom-like mechanism.
Of course, even in the current de facto system of IESG review, the RFC Editor has the ability (under the current written "rules") to ignore the IESG even if it recommends against publication and publish anyway. As far as I know, we've never come to that particular "constitutional crisis".
Suffice it to say, I think Keith's suggested alternative proposal is just wrongheaded.
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated