Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




we need to allow IESG to use some discretion here.

what *kind* of discretion?

should we allow the IESG the discretion to decide what they like or don't like and then allow them the authority to make the decision based on that?

or, should we allow the IESG the discretion to note potential issues and then allow them the authority to raise seek review and consensus from the IETF?

and, of course, there are more alternatives to consider "allowing", but these two highlight the underlying question here.



I could have sworn that Dave Clark preceded the "rough consensus" reference with a reference about our not assigning decision-making authority to a delegate. He named kings and presidents.

So it is not ok to have a king or a president, but it *is* ok to have an oligarchy?

--

  d/

 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 +1.408.246.8253
 dcrocker  a t ...
 WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]