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]

 



Dave Crocker wrote:

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?

As I read RFC 2780 that is (apart from the "don't like" caricatural phrasing)
today's rule:

5.5 IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and Destination Option Fields

   Values for the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options and Destination Options fields
   are allocated using an IESG Approval, IETF Consensus or Standards
   Action processes.


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?

If there is an IETF contribution to review (or equivalently, a liaison
communication from another standards body soliciting a review of their
specification), we can always do that. That is also allowed by 2780.

   Brian

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?



_______________________________________________

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]