Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> * The IETF as a whole does not have consensus on the >>>>> technical approach or document... >>> >>> This style of discuss is much more of a "Hold on here, let's >>> work together to check consensus," than a "I'm blocking this >>> document for ever." > >> This is venturing into dangerous territory. The best >> expertise on the technical issues involved _should_ be in >> the WG that produced the document. Expecting to find >> _better_ expertise within the IESG seems less than >> rational... > > For this type of discuss, the IESG is not making a technical judgment, > but rather a judgment of consensus and process. And expecting the > IESG to understand our process and be able to execute it is hopefully > a rational judgment. (I dislike being drawn into what threatens to become a flame-war.) Let me be clear: we're not talking about the example Sam gave, in which there was neither a WG nor technical content. I'm only talking about possible cases where there is a WG and there is technical content. We must avoid setting the bar too high when a WG is ready to publish a document. Indeed, the IESG is charged to judge consensus; but that has traditionally been a fairly low bar: no obvious technical problems and no undue danger of harm to the Internet being raised during the IETF-wide Last-Call. The vast majority of IETF participants "consent" to its publication by their silence, based upon a belief that others are doing the necessary perusals. I submit that _any_ technical problems and _any_ danger of harm to the Internet should be open to rebuttal by the WG, or to modifications to the document by the WG to reduce the problem to an acceptable level. (Such modifications may, of course, justify a new IETF-wide Last-Call.) Trying to judge the extent of "IETF-as-a-whole" consensus beyond the presence or absence of problems noted during Last-Call is akin to crystal-ball gazing, and should be strongly discouraged. It's bad enough that we expect the IESG to judge the seriousness of problems which _are_ raised during Last-Call. To hold them responsible for problems which _might_have_been_raised_ if everyone was actually reading every document is downright silly. We are _decades_ past the time when everybody _could_ read all the documents proposed for publication -- and even when we could, we declined to try. It's high time we gave up any pretense that the "IETF-as-a-whole" should come to "consensus" about the technical details of RFCs before they're published. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf