Re: Comments on appeal to the IESG concerning the approbation of the IDNA2008 document set.

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

 



>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    Andrew> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:02:53AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
    >> That seems to cover most angles. I can't see why the IESG could
    >> be expected to add technical disclaimers to a consensus
    >> document. In fact, doing so would probably be a process violation
    >> in itself.

    Andrew> Well, ok, and yes it probably would be a violation.  But to
    Andrew> defend the appelant, there might be a serious (though in my
    Andrew> view totally wrong) point in the appeal.

For what it's worth, I think it is entirely reasonable for the IESG to
add text raising technical concerns to a consensus document.  The IESG
note, unlike the rest of the document reflects IESG consensus, even in
cases where the document is intended to reflect IETF consensus.

Here's a case where I think it would be entirely appropriate for the
IESG to do so.  The current process--both internal IESG procedure and
RFC 2026 requires some level of agreement from the IESG to publish a
document.  If we had a case where it was clear that there was strong
community support for something that the IESG had serious concerns
about, I think it would be far bettor for the IESG to include its
concerns in an IESG note than to trigger a governance problem by
declining the document.  Another option also open to the IESG would be
to write up its concerns in an informational document published later.
Without knowledge of specifics I cannot comment on which I'd favor.

I have not read the current appeal and doubt that adding an IESG note is
the right solution to an appeal on technical grounds about a consensus
document.  I simply don't want a legitimate case where adding an IESG
note to come up years later and people dig through this discussion and
find no objections to the claim that adding such a note would be a
process violation.

--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
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]