Re: Experimental makes sense for tls-authz

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

 



> Actually, yes, we do leave the IESG to make the judgement, subject
> to appeal to the IAB.  I also think it's reasonably clear that the
> IESG is allowed to recognize that "circumstances alter cases" rather
> than to automatically follow precedents. But that's certainly a
> matter of interpretation.

As I see it, the use of the Experimental designation for situations like 
this one is quite appropriate.  Part of what we lost with the decline of 
the Draft Standard was the ability to judge the effect of encumbrance 
based on whether multiple interoperable implementations were precluded. 
As a result, the IETF is now publishing wave after wave of 
encumbered "Proposed Standards" whose prospects for widespread 
implementation are uncertain at best.  

It would be interesting to look at the data to see if the
average "Proposed Standard" would be any more likely to be implemented 
than your average "Experimental" or even "Informational" RFC.  

> > With respect to judging whether a particular set of emails constitutes a DoS
> > attack or an expression of the will of the IETF community -- RFC 2026
> > doesn't impose a "poll tax" on posters, requiring that they demonstrate
> > knowledge of IETF process to express their opinions. 
> 
> That's quite correct. But when judging the rough consensus of the IETF,
> I believe that the IESG is fully entitled to consider whether multiple
> similar messages from people who have rarely if ever participated in
> IETF activities carry as much weight as messages from active
> participants.

In this case, it's quite clear that many of the postings are the result of 
a "campaign":
http://www.fsf.org/news/oppose-tls-authz-standard.html

This is not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last.  
However, it would be desirable for the IETF to have a consistent approach
to such things.  One thing I like about the Experimental designation 
approach is that it allows the determination of the effect of encumbrance 
to be evaluated in retrospect, allowing the IETF Last Call to focus on 
technical arguments. 


_______________________________________________

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]