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