In my opinion, 3932bis is internally inconsistent about IESG notes. This
document expressly directs the IESG to reserve IESG notes for exceptional
cases, but then leaves the decision on whether the note should be included
to the RFC Editor:
> In exceptional cases, when the relationship of the document to the IETF
> standards process might be unclear, the IESG may request that the RFC
> Editor include an IESG note to clarify the relationship of the
> document to the IETF standards process, such a note is likely to
> include pointers to related IETF RFCs.
Personally, I think that the relationship is unclear in many cases, but it
is all a question of degree. I interpret this text as directing the IESG to
reserve such notes for cases where serious conflicts exist and it is
particularly important to clarify the relationship and identify the
documents that represent community consensus. In such a case, I would not
want to see the RFC Editor ignore the request or modify the note without
IESG agreement. The current text of 3932bis seems to permit either.
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.
Tim Polk
On 9/2/09 12:38 PM, "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'd also be happy with a
> mechanism where the IESG could propose a note, and the RFC editor had
> the option of accepting the note or asking the IESG to last-call its
> note within the IETF community.
>
> I would not consider it acceptable if the note were purely advisory.
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf