Hi Robert,
Our process, as currently instantiated, has three stages after a
document is submitted to the IESG for review/approval:
1. AD Review -- the responsible AD reviews the document and
determines if is ready for IETF LC. Sometimes other things happen at
this stage, like review by certain specialist groups (such as the MIB
doctors) and/or resolution of AD Review comments.
2. IETF LC -- the document goes to IETF LC, after which the
responsible AD determines whether the community has consensus to
publish the document. Any issues raised in IETF LC need to be
addressed before he document is approved by the IESG.
3. IETF Evaluation -- the full IESG reviews the document on a
telechat, stating positions (yes, no objection, discuss, abstain or
recuse) on the document. Any discuss positions have to be resolved
before the document is forwarded to the RFC editor for publication.
For a standards track document, there must also be at least one 'yes'
position and at least 9 'yes/no-ob' positions for a document to be
approved for publication.
It was my job (as responsible AD for DNSEXT) to perform the AD
review, send the document to IETF LC, determine whether or not we
have IETF consensus to publish the documen and make sure that any
substantive issues raised during IETF LC are addressed before sending
the document to the IESG for review.
In my opinion, based on the results of the IETF LC, the IETF LC
raised two substantive technical issues with this specification, and
the IETF community does not currently have consensus to publish this
document as a Proposed Standard. If the WG continues to believe that
this document should be published as a Proposed Standard, they will
address these technical issues (through changes to the document,
informing the community why changes are not needed, or other means)
and produce a document that will achieve IETF community consensus.
Like all decisions made by ADs, my decision is, of course, subject to appeal.
Margaret
At 9:32 PM +0700 9/21/05, Robert Elz wrote:
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:09:07 -0400
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <p0620071dbf52f99dab4c@[192.168.2.2]>
I am not going to comment on the substance of the issues, or the
doc in question, as I haven't been following what is happening with
it, nor have a read a recent version.
But ...
| Based on these conclusions, I do not intend to forward the LLMNR
| specification to the IESG for review and approval.
What kind of process is going on here? As I recall it, from rfc2026,
it is the IESG that issues last calls, when it has a doc for review, and
the IESG that decides if a last call has passed or not (that is, the IESG
takes input from the comments received during the last call to help it make
its decision on what to do with the doc that has been presented to it).
How did we ever get an IETF last call on a doc that hasn't even gone to
the IESG (apparently) but is still (apparently) under AD review ?
And how does one AD (alone, apparently) get to draw conclusions based upon
the results of the last call ?
What is happening here? Can't the IETF manage to either follow its
own documented processes, or change them in the approved way?
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf