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.
On its face, this is certainly a reasonable path to follow. However it has three practical problems.
One is effort and delay. Adding more layers of decision-making and negotiation imposes non-trivial cost. The more barriers we place in the way of independent submission, the less it will get used. Worse, that's a stated goal for some folk.
The second is that it has become nearly impossible to find anything that looks like classic "rough consensus" on the IETF list. The diversity of understanding, commitment and goals of participants on the IETF list has become far too diverse. So as a mechanism for discerning how to resolve an impasse, it isn't likely to be very helpful.
The third is that it creates a negative incentive for the RFC Editor to act as an independent agency. When it presses a point and finds a wall of hassle to deal with, this has a chilling effect on its likelihood of pressing. They come to see such matters of principle as not worth the effort.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf