On Aug 31, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[...]
+1 , including the "IETF consensus call" part.
I don't understand how IETF consensus is relevant to a non-IETF
document.
Can't the IETF can have a consensus that a non-IETF document
relates to
other IETF work in some way?
Well, yes, but that's a decision we have historically chosen to
trust the IESG to take. I see no evidence that that has been a
problem,
and I didn't think Jari was reopening that aspect.
Ah, sorry, I was agreeing with Brian Rosen statement that a concensus
call was okay. I didn't mean (and I doubt he did, but he can speak for
himself) that I think we _needed_ one, only that if that were the only
way we could make an IESG request "binding", then it was okay. If we
feel we can trust the IESG on this, I'm okay with it :-)
In fact the answer to Jari's question appears to be a matter of
logic,
not of opinion. The IESG, which acts for the IETF, logically cannot
determine anything about the contents of a non-IETF document. So the
inclusion of an IESG note can only be a request.
How would you expect the RFC editor to evaluate such a request? Under
what circumstances would it be reasonable to refuse to include it?
Well, in the future it will be the Independent Series Editor. I would
expect him/her to take such a decision just like an academic journal
editor would decide how to deal with a critical review. I'd expect
that
in the large majority of cases, the ISE would agree to the request,
and would only consider refusing it if he/she concluded that the
IESG was
showing unreasonable bias.
I assume an ISE could also who bias.
It seems to me this all converges on deciding who has to appeal in a
dispute.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf