Hi Elwyn,
At 09:10 12-01-11, Elwyn Davies wrote:
This document is not quite ready for the IESG. The appeals process (if
there is to be one) needs to clarified as it currently points indirectly
to a hole in RFC 5226. As explained below, I have a feeling that it
would be wise to avoid tying the processes in this document to the
Designated Expert processes in RFC 5226 despite the similarities.
Making it clear what does apply and what doesn't is probably more work
than doing it from scratch in this document, especially given the hole
in RFC 5226.
[snip]
I think the draft should make it explicit that it is referring to the
'Designated Expert' sections in RFC 5226 here if it continues to
reference RFC 5226 - although there is a clear relationship with
Designated Experts, the differences between the selection process and
the operations of the TZ Coordinator and generic Deisgnated Experts may
Yes, there are significant differences. According to RFC 5226:
"The designated expert is responsible for initiating and coordinating
the appropriate review of an assignment request."
It might be helpful to get some feedback from IANA and the IETF Trust
on this draft before it is evaluated by the IESG.
mean that citing RFC 5226 might lead to legalistic disputes about which
set of rules applies. Also, I am unable to find statements in RFC 5226
backing up the sentence above. Regrettably, RFC 5226 appears
effectively to have a 'dsngling reference' in this area. Section 3.2,
para 3 of RFC 5226 points at Section 5.2 which (allegedly) discusses
'disputes and appeals in more detail'. However s5.2 is titled 'Updating
Registrations' and says nothing about appeals and disputes. Section 7
of RFC 5226 covers appeals of IANA decisions but says nothing specific
about appealing designated expert rulings. I think this area may need a
little more work. Overall, my inclination would be to make this a
standalone document that does not try to partially modify the RFC 5226
Designated Expert process and operations. Appeals... >*sigh*<.
Section 7 of RFC 5226 states that:
"Appeals of registration decisions made by IANA can be made using the
normal IETF appeals process as described in Section 6.5 of
[IETF-PROCESS]."
Section 4 of mentions that:
"In keeping with [RFC5226], the IESG selects the TZ
coordinator(s). The IESG will use rough consensus of the TZ mailing
list as their primary guide to further action, when it exists, and
whatever other means they have at their disposal, when rough
consensus cannot be found. As RFC-5226 states, the IESG is not a
normal avenue for appeals of specific decisions of the coordinator,
but rather a last resort when a coordinator is thought not to be
functioning in an appropriate way."
That could be rewritten as:
The IESG selects the TZ coordinator(s). The IESG will use the rough
consensus of the TZ mailing list as their primary guide for any action,
when it exists, and whatever other means they have at their disposal,
when rough consensus cannot be found.
The IESG is not an avenue for appeals of specific decisions of the
coordinator, but rather a last resort when a coordinator is thought not
to be functioning in an appropriate way. An appeal can be made in such
a case by using the normal IETF appeals process as described in Section
6.5 of RFC 2606.
The following sentence in Section 1.1 might have to be removed then:
"The TZ coordinatior is a Designated Expert, as defined in [RFC5226]"
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf