On Sep 2, 2009, at 7:20 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
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.
I think it is more than reasonable to expect documented communication if a request from the IESG is not honored by the ISE. I also think it is reasonable to expect such decision to be appealable/reviewable and that all the communication is timely.
So yes, I support this, in fact I take this for granted.I believe that difference of technical opinion follows RFC 4846 sect 5 (which is about publishing or not publishing). The denial of a note from the IESG is a dispute between streams that follows RFC 5620 4.2.1. I can see that there could be some argument about which procedure to follow but in the end the RFC Editor (the RSE in this case) will make the final decisions based on various recommendations (that is how both 4846 and 5820 are written).
--Olaf (no hats)
--Olaf
________________________________________________________
Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf