path forward with RFC 3932bis

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I'd like to draw some conclusions about the discussion that we had on this topic. I also believe we have a way forward.

My read of discussion is that the community is split on the mandatory vs. optional IESG note question. There was a good number of people on both sides. Both sides had rational arguments, and it seemed hard to dismiss either point of view.

However, a compromise position emerged during the discussion. The general idea is that an appeal-style safety mechanism allows a conflict -- if one ever appears -- to be resolved in a reasonable manner. I talked to the IESG about this, and we would like to propose something along the lines that a number of people brought up in the discussion: if the RFC Editor believes that an IESG note is inappropriate, they can indicate so, and the IESG in turn can determine whether it wants to appeal the editor's decision.

I believe this is a reasonable approach, it retains the independence of the editor, it does not create any new processes that have to be executed for every document, and should an inappropriate note/inappropriate deletion of a note ever occur, it allows the situation to be fixed.

However, there's obviously many details missing. I will work with Olaf and Russ to come up with a more specific proposal*. Once we have that there will be an opportunity to comment. We will also work with the IAB to make sure the outcome is appropriate from their perspective. Stay tuned.

Jari

*) Of course, the proposal may use already existing processes, but I would like to be very explicit in 3932bis about pointing to those processes, to leave no room for unclarity.

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]