Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:14:54 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <D3F51B166818650500445C8A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| I don't agree, which is no surprise.
Not really!
| RFC 2434 also says (section 2):
|
| One way to insure community review of prospective assignments
Yes, and all that is fine, and I am by no means proposing to do anything
to prevent people getting that kind of review if they desire it. Not
even to prevent working groups from requiring that kind of review for a
paramater if they can convince themselves, and the IETF at last call, that
a parameter really is so fundamental that new values cannot simply be
allocated (as I said before, I haven't read John's draft yet, so I'm
not sure if this is in accordance with that draft or not).
However, not every parameter needs such a review - if that was essential
the working group would demand a standards action RFC before a new
parameter could be defined (and I believe that has been done). If
slightly less than that is required, review can also be obtained by
demanding at least IETF consensus.
For most parameters neither is necessary. IPv6 options are one such.
That's simply true because of the way they're defined, and recognised as
such by rfc2780 when it allows ietf consensus or standards action processes
to allocate options, but also allows IETF consensus, which does not
require that kind of review, which I believe is where we do agree.
| Like you, I don't think the issue itself is important enough to waste this
| many cycles on.
There I do disagree with you. Not with respect to the particular
option that was requested, I don't doubt but that if they need it,
they will have their option (registered by IANA or not). That's
not crucial.
However the IESG process that led to all of this is.
| Whether the IESG did a competent technical review or not is
| beside the question - they make mistakes, like any other body.
I dont' care whether their review was competent or not, what I care
about is that they did it at all, when they should not have, and then
the way they handled things afte that.
| The important part is that when they are asked to review something, we
| SHOULD expect them to make technical judgments. And that's how I think it
| should stay.
There I absolutely disagree. Technical judgements should be the
provence of the IETF and its working groups. If a technical judgement
was required, then as in the section you quoted above, there are
mechanisms to demand that. Both because the IESG has quite enough
work to do without being lumbered by being required to do this, and
because they're (almost necessarily) a small insular group who tell the
world almost nothing about why they do what they do, expecting the IESG
to make that kind o judgement is simply the wrong choice to make.
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf