Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:37:31 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <4A9D239B.7070303@xxxxxxxxx>
| Right, and we are not.
That is very good to hear. I haven't been watching much of recent
IETF happenings (last few years) so I explicitly make no comment about
anything that has happened recently.
In the past however, back when I was more involved, there were occasions
when that was certainly not the case - there were cases where the IESG
decided that a proposal (an independent submission) would really be bad for
the internet, and requested (and perhaps even published) notes with comments
along the lines of how insecure, unscalable, and generally horrid some
document was, and strongly advising the world to ignore it.
That's all technical discussion, and none of that should ever be a part
of an IESG note requested to be added to a doc.
Given that, what's left for an IESG note pretty much amounts to "this
does not represent IETF consensus" or "Readers should also see RFCxxxx
for an alternative solution" - neither of which are very likely to be
ignored by the editor - or in fact, by the doc author if requested of
him or her - so there should be no need for mandatory addition of notes,
just a request should be enough (ie: if one ever is refused, the chances
are really pretty good that it should never have been requested.)
One final note, none of this, of course, prevents anyone, including
IESG members, writing their own independent submission, criticising some
other proposal (in a different RFC) - such a thing could even be made
an IETF consensus doc if desired - that's all reasonable,but of course
takes more effort, and real considered and supported arguments, an IESG
note to the same effect is just the lazy way out, and should never be
used (and to repeat my opening comment, I am not claimimg that it has any
time recently, I simply have no idea.)
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf