--On Monday, August 31, 2009 10:59 -0400 Brian Rosen
<br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Following a request to look at this document, and with only a
> cursory look at the archives, I'm confused.
>
> The note is always intended to be included in the document
> itself, right?
>
> Is this change designed to compel, as opposed to request, the
> RFC Editor to include the note?
>
> If the answer to those is yes, then I support the change. The
> RFC Editor is not selected to make judgments on whether a note
> from the IESG should, or should not be included in a document.
> It's not an editorial judgment, it's is a technical concern.
Brian,
Remember that 3932bis applies to the Independent Submission
stream, not to IETF documents of any flavor. These are, in
general, documents that have not been formally reviewed in the
IETF (although many of them have been extensively discussed).
They are not IETF Stream documents, about which, subject to
push-back from WGs and the community, the IESG can do pretty
much as it likes.
For these documents, there is no IETF Last Call. If the IESG
creates a note, that note reflects the individual judgments of
the ADs (and presumably IESG review and approval of those
judgments) and not the rough consensus of the IETF community.
Given that, while it may be a "technical concern" (or at least
reflective of a technical preference), it is a concern from (at
most) a group of individuals who happen to be on the IESG; there
is no requirement that it represent a technical concern from the
IETF community.
In that context, what you are really asking for is that the
preferences or concerns of that group of individuals --
preferences that they could not get the RFC Editor or document
authors to accept through normal review channels -- override the
decision-making process and approval of a non-IETF stream.
Especially since we expect documents in the Independent
Submission stream that would carefully criticize or provide
alternatives to IETF-approved approaches (see RFC 4846), giving
the IESG that much authority, especially without consulting the
IETF Community and determining consensus, does not seem sensible
or consistent to me. Indeed, it seems like a mechanism for
permitting only authorized dissent.
>...
YMMD.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf