RJ Atkinson wrote: > > The "IETF Consensus" matters, I believe it should, but I currently completely fail to see that it did matter to the IESG. > > and I believe the IESG did fully and properly consider that matter > in the case that appears to have driven your note. I would be curious about the IETF Last Call writeup from the responsible Area Director about the issue that were raised during IETF Last Call and their resolution, rfc-4858 Section 3.2 (2.i) => (2.b)-(2.h) http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4858#page-10 I don't see that IETF LC Writeup in the Datatracker https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/writeup/ And I don't see the significant objection specifically on the procedural issue that moving to historic is an abuse of the IETF process in the comments of other ADs here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/ballot/ So I agree to Pauls original request for clarification: Has the IESG given itself entirely new procedures for protocol actions, and when are those going to be published (maybe using the same bypass of the traditional IETF consensus process that the above document seems to have used). > > Paul's assertion that public postings to the IETF Discussion > list are the only metric for "IETF Consensus" is NOT correct > -- and never has been in the past. If you read rfc4858 section 3.2 above, there was supposed to be a collection, determination and resolution process for issues raised in an IETF LC in just the same fashion as for the WG LC, and an IETF writeup of significant issues raised during IETF LC and their resolution as a prerequisition for an IESG decision. If the new IESG approach to faster publication of RFC is to simply ignore issues raised during IETF LC and rely primarily on WG Last Call, and to make this change to the IETF procedures bypassing public discussion and IETF consensus, then it would be helpful for the resource management of IETF participants when determining where to spend their valuable time: on WG discussions or IETF LCs. > > "IETF Consensus" includes ALL of the inputs that the IESG > receives about a document or issue that is put to IETF > Last Call. IETF Consensus precludes ignoring procedural issues and in-scope technical issues. Otherwise it is IESG consensus at best. Why was there no serious consideration to downgrade 6to4 to experimental instead of moving it to historic? Are there any serious procedural issues against "experimental"? > > The Last Call announcement specifically says, > for example, that comments may be sent privately to the > IESG. > > Consensus inputs are NOT limited to posted public comments, > BUT ALSO include formal liaisons, communications with various > WG Chairs (not limited to the sponsoring WG), private email > to the IESG, private email to an AD, and more. The irritation is about consensus-precluding input that has been openly discussed in a quite elaborate fashion and a complete lack of writeup and resolution of the IETF LC issues on the part of the responsible AD. ...which bears resemblance with what this words of rfc2418 specifically cautions against: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418#section-2.3 Proposed working groups often comprise technically competent participants who are not familiar with the history of Internet architecture or IETF processes. This can, unfortunately, lead to good working group consensus about a bad design. The job of the IESG is _not_ to defend a WGs interests against the interests of the IETF at large, but the other way round, to ensure that the interests of the IETF at large are sufficiently addressed by the output of the WG (or the author of an independent submission) before a document is published as RFC. > > Note also that this is THE SAME as how WG Chairs are supposed > to operate. WG Chairs are supposed to consider ALL inputs, > NOT ONLY public postings to the WG list, BUT ALSO private > inputs from WG participants and other applicable folks, > and whatever other inputs arrive after a WG Last Call is > announced. Yes, but in an open standardizations body, the WG Chairs need to document "openly" whatever input (content, not necessary contributor) that they based their decision on. A WG Chair or AD writing "I've received important input from important lobbies, but I am unwilling or unable to disclose any content, so I declare consensus to be that certain way." would not be appropriate for the original open standardization process of the IETF. Neither the absence of a write-up or deliberate ignorance of raised procedural and in-scope technical issues. Also contentious matters of taste should be documented in the write-up. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf