John, Your suggestion would largely address my concerns related to the timely appeal path. Best regards, Pasi > -----Original Message----- > From: ext John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] > Sent: 02 September, 2009 20:20 > To: Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki); jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: iesg@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory > nature of IESG notes > > > > --On Tuesday, September 01, 2009 09:55 +0200 > Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > > >> If the ISE / RSE is unreasonable, the IAB will slap the > >> editor and say "stop doing that." There is no equivalent > >> process if we reverse the structure. > > > > Yes, there is. If the IESG would request/recommend a > > particularly bad IESG note, this decision can be appealed just > > like any other IESG decision. The IAB would then determine if > > the IESG acted appropriately or not. > > > > On the other hand, if the ISE/RSE decides to publish a document > > without an IESG note even if the IESG requested/recommended > > it, this decision cannot be effectively appealed (since the > > RFC already came out, and can't be really "recalled"). > > > > Although I'm not expecting this really to happen very often > > (if ever), from checks-and-balances viewpoint I would support > > (b) from Jari's email (in other words: RFC Editor cannot > > unilaterally ignore a note requested by IESG, but has to take > > it to the IAB via the usual appeal procedures). > > Pasi, > > A comment and then a suggested middle position. > > I've been watching what we now call the Independent Submission > Process for far longer than there has been an IETF. I've seen > it as an insider for a large fraction of two decades -- as an > AD, an IAB member and then chair, as an editorial board member, > and now as an IAB member again. During that period, I've never > seen an RFC Editor abuse the process by ignoring legitimate > input. Bob Braden may be able to provide an inside view --not > in his present role of RFC Editor but as the very-long-time IAB > Exec Director -- of what happened before 1992, but my educated > guess is that instances of "RFC Editor ignores input" during > that time were also about zero. > > During the same period, I'd seen behavior I consider abusive > from ADs or the IESG many times -- attempting to prevent > publication of documents with which they had personal/ emotional > disagreements that they were unwilling or unable to explain in > public, asking for publication holds on documents for multiples > of years, insisting that the RFC Editor not move forward until > the IESG responds in some way and then not responding for months > and months, demanding changes that would significantly weaken > the document or change its meaning, and so on. Many of those > problems have been resolved by negotiation, but some have not. > RFC 3932, and its limitation on technical review, was a huge > improvement over its predecessors in that regard, but we've > heard multiple ADs over the years claim that they can redefine > any disagreement about a document into either a technical issue > or a technical one (whichever is needed) if they care enough and > especially if they can define the boundary (which they also have > insisted that the IESG has the unilateral right to do). > > In principle, the IAB could appoint a new ISE to take over in > January who would adopt a policy of abusiveness. But I think I > can speak for the ACEF membership and the IAB if I say that we > don't intend to do that... and that the IAB would expect the RSE > to move fairly quickly, with the IAB's backing, to correct the > attitudes involved if it occurred anyway. > > So trying to make IESG notes mandatory on documents originating > in another stream for the reasons you cite above is solving a > problem we've never had at the risk of making a problem worse > that we've had several times. That strikes me as bad > engineering at best. > > And insisting that the RFC Editor invoke a formal appeals > procedure in case of disagreement with the IESG about an > Independent Submission would, as Olaf points out, largely undo > the efforts of the last few years to clearly separate the > different streams. It would be as sensible to say that IESG > notes should be sufficiently exceptional that the IESG would > need to consult the IAB and get permission before sending any > such note-request to the ISE. I suspect that such a provision > would not make either the IESG or the IAB very happy. > > However, if your concern is really to make sure that there is a > timely appeal path, I have a suggestion that might be acceptable > to everyone without causing unfortunate side-effects. We simply > require that, if the ISE receives input from the IESG requesting > specific changes to a document ("specific changes" including, > but not limited to, so-called "IESG Notes") and the ISE and > authors decide to not incorporate those proposed changes, the > ISE is required to explain to the IESG, in writing, why not and > allow a reasonable period of time for the IESG to respond. If > it felt it were necessary, the IESG could then open a further > discussion, ask the RSE to mediate, or launch a formal request > for IAB review. Consistent with other provisions in RFC 4846, > either the IESG or the ISE could, at their discretion, make the > correspondence (the request and response) public. > > The one restriction I'd impose on this is that "reasonable time" > not be more than a few weeks... again, there has been abuse in > that area in the past and re-enabling such abuse would be, well, > dumb. If the ISE notifies the IESG and the IESG doesn't > respond, then the ISE can go ahead and publish without further > delay. > > Does that work for you? And, if not and you still think you > need mandatory notes, why? > > best, > john > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf