--On Tuesday, September 08, 2009 16:36 +0200 Olaf Kolkman
<olaf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Polk, William T. wrote:
>
>> I believe Sam's suggestion offers a good compromise position:
>> if the IESG
>> and RFC Editor do not come to an agreement, we should last
>> call the proposed
>> IESG Note and let the community determine whether (1) this is
>> an exceptional
>> case meriting a note and (2) if the text accurately clarifies
>> the relationship.
>
>
> Which community, The IETF community or the wider RFC
> community? And who calls the consensus?
Also, please remember, again, that the IESG _always_ has the
right and opportunity to publish a dissent as a separate RFC in
the IETF Track. If that dissent is wildly out of line with the
wishes of the IETF community, the IETF community presumably has
ways to deal with that. Anything sufficiently controversial to
justify the procedure above almost certainly justifies that
treatment because a separate RFC can document reasoning and
context, while any plausible note (and all such notes so far,
including the texts specified in 3932) merely provide a
statement of conclusions.
The main argument I've heard against that approach is that the
IESG doesn't have the time. But, if it doesn't, then a full
community review as described above, with the inevitable
community fine-tuning of text, is certainly going to equally
time-consuming. The issue justifying comment is either
important or it is not, and allowing the IESG to impose a note
by a cryptic comment (whether intentionally so or not) in
minutes and/or the tracker doesn't serve either the community
nor the separation of streams well.
Perhaps we should be discussing supplementing "Obsoletes" and
"Updates" in RFC headers and the index with "Dissents from",
"Heaps abuse upon", and/or "Ridicules" to make the intended
relationships among document more clear, but...
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf