I agree with Sam, for cases which would otherwise result in an
endless DISCUSS - although normally I'd expect the argument
to be complex enough that a separate RFC would be needed to
explain the dissent.
Brian
On 2010-03-12 09:58, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "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
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf