Re: Complaints Against The IESG and The RFC-Editor About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




I will however caution against the assumption that IESG is inherently
overbearing and a separate review function is inherently more
reasonable.  No matter who does the review there will always be the
potential for capriciousness on the part of the reviewer.

It seems to me that while many prefer IESG review some believe it may not always be fair and balanced. So if I can make a suggestion, it would be
good while defaulting to IESG review to also specify that submitter may
challenge their review results and/or request an independent review from
another source. So it would be good if we had some other organization or
specified procedure on how RFC-Editor can request review from somebody
other then IESG or some other then IETF-related body.

Also it seems that not specifying how long review should take allows to
delay document indefinitely, which is a form of rejection without officially
saying so - so maximum time that review can take should be specified (say
6 months) and if results are not made available to author and RFC-Editor
by end of this time, RFC-Editor default choice should be to publish as-is
without any IESG note.

--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william@xxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________

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]