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, et. al.,

This is quite a complex situation, and I am a bit confused about it myself...

We have a document that says that an IP option number can be allocated based on IESG approval, IETF consensus or standards action processes, right?

So, based on our own standards and BCPs, we have given the IESG the authority to allocate an IP option number.

Can we really give the IESG that authority and not also give the IESG the authority to say 'no'?

In this particular case, the IESG was asked to approve the assignment of an IP option number to this document, and we chose to say 'no'.

The criteria by which the IESG would make this determination are not documented. In this case, we decided that this specific proposal presents significant enough technical issues and incompatibilities with existing IETF specifications that we didn't feel comfortable assigning an IP option number for this purpose.

I don't think the fact that the IESG did not choose to exercise its authority to allocate this IP option number precludes the proponents of this allocation from attempting to gain IETF consensus (for which they would presumably need to publish their draft as an I-D and make any IPR holding clear), nor does it preclude the authors of this document from attempting to publish the document as an IETF standard (which would also mean publishing it as an I-D).

Of course, I do understand that these three options are not _really_ as separate as RFC 2434 seems to indicate that they are... In order to establish IETF consensus, it is practically necessary to gain Brian Carpenter's cooperation, as he is (as far as I know) the only person who can really put a question the IETF and judge our consensus on the response. And, to publish a document on the standards track, it would be necessary to get at least one IESG member to sponsor the work and to get IESG approval to publish the document.

Personally, I think that if the IETF doesn't want to give the IESG the right to approve (and refuse to approve) the allocation of IP options, then the IETF should update RFC 2780.

Margaret


At 9:53 AM -0700 6/29/05, 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?

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


_______________________________________________

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]