Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission stream. We ask the IESG to review these documents, and that review is technical. I don't think it is appropriate for an editor to make a judgment of whether a technical note is, or is not appropriate to be included in a document. I think the presumption should be that it is appropriate, and the authors have a way to object. While I understand the role of the ISE is somewhat different from the RFC Editor, I understand the role to be primarily editorial and we are not choosing the ISE with regard to their ability to make judgments like whether the IESG note is appropriate or not. I think it would be okay to have the note go through an IETF consensus call. Brian On 8/31/09 11:25 AM, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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