>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Eric> At Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:15:40 -0500,
Eric> Sam Hartman wrote:
>> >>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>
John> --On Thursday, 29 November, 2007 09:54 +1300 Brian E
John> Carpenter
John> <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
John> I'd like to see something like the above combined with a
John> shorter window, maybe at two levels ("hold publication
John> until..." and "provisional until..."). Of course, if an
John> appeal is actually filed, it would be sensible to hold
John> publication until it is resolved.
>> I disagree that it is always sensible to hold publication
>> until the appeal is resolved, particularly for expedited
>> publication drafts.
>>
>> We've had some very bogus appeals and writing up the responses
>> is not always our top priority.
Eric> I'm actually very concerned by this reasoning. Upon deciding
Eric> an appeal, the IESG owes the appellant a prompt response. If
Eric> they don't have time to write up a response, then that's
Eric> fine, they can treat the appeal as undecided but the
Eric> document should be held pending the IESG getting time to do
Eric> that.
I was sloppy in my wording and thought process.
In the American legal system, there is a concept of a preliminary
injunction--a leagel procedure to stop some action pending the outcome
of some legal action.
The idea is that there are some cases where it is desirable to hold
things pending an outcome being determined, and some cases where there
is a desire to clean up the mess later if there ends up being a
problem.
I think that for some of the same reasons preliminary injunctions make
sense in the IETF, it is sometimes desirable to say that the
probability that withdrawing a document is going to be the right
solution is low enough that the appeal should not block the process.
The IESG typically doesn't "decide appeals" without actually having
response text in front of it; I think that is right and proper.
However, the IESG does sometimes know what direction it is likely to
consider in drafting response text and does have an idea about how
probable it is that publishing a document and later the IESG or IAB
realizing that a mistake was made is harmful.
I think there are cases where it is appropriate not to allow an
pending appeal to block publication.
It might be reasonable for the IAB to be able to hold publication
before an appeal had formally reached them. Personally I think the
current IAB would be too conservative in applying this power and I'd
like the community to come up with some guidance to give the IAB if
they were going to do that regularly. I have confidence that if the
community could agree on guidance the IAB would do a fine job of
applying that and I have confidence that absent guidance the IAB would
use their best judgment. I just think the IAB tends to be more
conservative than would be appropriate in this case.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf