Re: Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards track

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Keith,

 

Yes, to what you are saying, but I was pointing out that the text we're discussing isn't intended to apply to moving what a working group has consensus for onto the standards track, it's intended to apply to what the *IETF* already has consensus for, that's already on the standards track, further along the standards track.

 

I think there's a higher bar, especially when a document is advancing unchanged, because I don't think there's any meaningful distinction between a widely deployed PS that could be improved, and advancing it to be a widely deployed IS that could be improved. I don't see the value-add from DISCUSSing the advancement, because the same document is sitting there as a proposed standard, and widely deployed.

 

If ADs look at a document proposed for advancement and see real and meaningful opportunities to improve the specification, I think it makes just as much sense to advance the document, as is, and start looking for people who will produce an improved version, as to slow down the document for DISCUSSion in the hope you end up with an improved document, that can then advance. Finding those people, and chartering that work, falls well within the "S" in IESG, AFAICT.

 

Thanks,

 

Spencer

----- Original Message -----

From: Keith Moore

To: Spencer Dawkins

Cc: Jari Arkko ; IETF Discussion

Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:35 AM

Subject: Re: Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards track

thanks Spencer for pointing this part out.

On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

 IESG reviews should be considered as a review of "last resort".  Most
 documents reviewed by the IESG are produced and reviewed in the
 context of IETF working groups.  In those cases, the IESG cannot
 overrule working group consensus without good reason; informed
 community consensus should prevail.

The idea that WG consensus should prevail is simply incorrect.  It biases IESG in an inappropriate way.

There are a number of very good reasons for overriding WG consensus, e.g.

- there is no evidence of broad community consensus or a clear lack of broad community consensus

- the document does not meet the criteria specified in 2026 (or other document when applicable)

- the document is ambiguous in such a way that it is likely to degrade interoperability

The WG DOES NOT represent the entire community.    Far too often, WGs are deliberately chartered in such a way as to marginalize parts of the community

Keith

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf