At 11:22 08/07/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As most RFC authors know, when an IESG member identifies a problem in
a draft under IESG review, he or she casts a DISCUSS ballot, with
accompanying text, and the DISCUSS has to be cleared before the
document can advance.
draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt talks about this. Even within the
IESG, we still have one or two points to resolve, but we wanted to get
this out before the cutoff date. This isn't in any way intended to change
any of the principles of the standards process, but we'd welcome
community comment.
I have a problem It concerns the need of non IESG DISCUSS by concerned
authoritative entities whose personal opposition may block the adhesion of
the Internet community to the RFC. I will illustrate with the IANA aspects.
When a RFC calls for a IANA Registry management, the IANA under RFC 2860
should comply with it. We however have a grey area which concerns the
applications involving for example ISO 3166 (country codes), ISO 639
(languages), ISO 11179 (Registires), etc. I name some which are in the
current debate today. But it is likely that the convergence, the universal
development of the Internet, etc. will lead to such situations where an
IETF defined registry using external standards leads to correlations
opposed by those who accepted the standard.
This problem is obviously a ransom of the Internet success, but it is a key
problem for the Internet and IETF integration.
I have no specific solution here, but I say two things:
1. the joint committes and liaisons with other SDOs should have the
possibility to rise a DISCUSS flag
2. the IANA should not be forced to accept the management of a Directory
without the issue being agreed with all the concerned parties. The major
evolution of the Internet we face is the distribution of the IANA functions
(USA initiated a move I work on for four years). It is of the utmost
importance that we avoid an "alt-root" situation here, all the more than
the first partners will most probably include Governements and the next
ones concerned cultures. It is therefore of the essence that the conference
of the distributed National/Regional/Local/Corporate/Private Centers of
References, whatever it may be built as, has the capacity to DISCUSS a
Registry specified in an RFC and prevent its parameter polution by
disagreeing Reference Centres Managers.
This is particularly true for the Registries where the ISO standards above
are considered (ISO 3166 is the most widely used ISO table and is clearly
identified in the Internet to ccTLDs for national communities and to GAC
for Governments, ISO 639 series identifies languages, what means commonly
cultures [English speaking people and young cultures use to attach more
their culture to Nations, Religions, etc.]).
I know some will object that this is not the way the Internet is specified.
Or that this is not the way it should work. Or this is L8/L9 concerns out
of IETF/IESG scope. The same as some said and may be continue to say that
for the root. This will not change that this is the way the root works
today and this is the way the IANA starts being considered today.
Establishing rules taking reality into account, will only permit to smooth
the transition from a mono-default to a multi-enacted parametered internet.
The Internet partitionning (legacy, regalian, national, cultural,
proximity, trade, kids, private, etc.) is a necessity: the USA just
affirmed it for their own account; I identified and documented it here
nearly two years ago. We have now to progressively acknowledge it and build
the procedures and projects which will help making it a concerted
compartmentalisation rather than to close our eyes on the wild
balkanisation now engaged.
jfc
Brian
Internet-Drafts@xxxxxxxx wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.is draft is a work item of the Internet Engineering Steering
Group Working Group of the IETF.
Title : DISCUSS Criteria in IESG Review
Author(s) : J. Peterson, et al.
Filename : draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt
Pages : 10
Date : 2005-7-7
This document describes the role of the 'DISCUSS' position in the
IESG review process. It gives some guidance on when a DISCUSS should
and should not be issued. It also discusses procedures for DISCUSS
resolution.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-discuss-criteria-00.txt
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf