Hi Alexey,
At 03:32 17-09-10, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
There might be some mis-communication on this and lack of anything
in the datatracker, but feedback was heard by the IESG.
According to the write-up, the issued identified by the community
were determined to be out of scope.
Firstly, based on IETF LC feedback the document status got
downgraded from Proposed Standard to Informational.
The question of whether the IETF Last Call was appropriate has not
been answered.
Secondly, based on IETF LC I entered a DISCUSS on the document. I
did much deeper AD review that I would have done otherwise. I forced
authors to fixup obvious email related problems (but of course I
didn't catch all of them). And I delayed document publication until
a discouraging RFC Editor note was added.
I don't have any problem with the level of review which you did. You
probably did more work than what would be expected on an IESG evaluation.
According to the write-up, the draft was reviewed and discussed on a
WG mailing list. You mentioned asking the others to fixup obvious
email related problems after the WG discussion. If there were still
obvious email related problems, I conclude that the level of review
performed on the WG mailing list was inappropriate.
However I didn't feel that preventing publication of the document
was the right thing to do. I've moved my position on the document to
Abstain, which is just about as strong of a statement on the
document as I think should be done.
Noted. :-)
Thirdly, Dave's review comments were taken into consideration. The
discouraging RFC Editor note in the document was based on Dave's
review. (We can argue separately if the note is strong enough.)
Ok.
I would also like to add that if this document were submitted as an
Independent Submission, IESG would have had very little power (or
even no power) to say anything about what is wrong with the proposed
approach. So people should be very careful about what they are wishing for.
If this document was submitted as an Independent Submission, it would
not be in the IETF Stream and it would not be the IESG's problem to
solve. John Klensin already mentioned RFC 5830-5832. If I recall
correctly, that was done because of a "RFC Required" code-point assignment.
I would be very happy to discuss how the discouraging RFC Editor
note could be improved
Do we have to discuss about why we should not fall for the "rough
consensus and running code" sound bite? :-)
At 03:39 17-09-10, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Well, yes. But my personal bar for publishing an Informational
document on something which is already deployed, is much lower.
At a higher level, I agree with you.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf