I have no interest in or knowledge of the technical details, but there is a pretty complicated DISCUSS against this draft, which doesn't look like rubber-stamping to me: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis/ballot/ I assume you've already let the IESG know about the defects you're concerned about. Brian On 12/04/2013 16:26, Martin Rex wrote: > Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can >> say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and >> sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review >> by the IESG does serve a purpose. > > I'm currently seeing a document with some serious defects in > IETF Last Call (rfc2560bis) and an apparent desire to have > it Rubberstamped by the IESG (recycling at Proposed Standard). > > While that seems procedurally permitted for the IESG to do such > rubberstamping (aka "waive") for a proposed standard > (rfc2026, last paragraph on page 12): > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#page-12 > > A Proposed Standard should have no known technical omissions with > respect to the requirements placed upon it. However, the IESG may > waive this requirement in order to allow a specification to advance > to the Proposed Standard state when it is considered to be useful and > necessary (and timely) even with known technical omissions. > > one should really consider the consequences of such a decision, > especially for -bis and -ter documents. > > The original draft (and now full) standard requires that such defects > are removed _before_ the document is advanced. So when "waiving" known > defects/omissions (in particular obvious and formally provable ones), > this means that there will have to be a ter document produced where > this defects are fixed and this document be recycled at Proposed > one more time before the standard can progress on the maturity level. > > It turns out that for a non-negligible amount of the defects there > is a constituency that want the defect to be retained rather than > fixed, and they expect the IESG to waive defects on -bis, -ter etc. > documents whenever it was previously accepted for Proposed with > that defect. > > >> IMHO, if the IESG members sticks to their own criteria at >> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html, >> i.e. do not DISCUSS a document for spurious reasons, they >> are doing just fine. If they don't stick to those criteria, >> complaint is justified. >> >> Of course this will always be a matter of judgment. >> >> Regards >> Brian >> >> On 11/04/2013 18:54, Joe Touch wrote: >>> My concern is that by conflating their IESG position with their personal >>> review, the document process is inappropriately delayed and that >>> documents are modified to appease a small community that does not >>> justify its position as representative. > > What do you want to see the IESG do instead? > > Simply Rubberstamp WG consensus? That would turn the whole IESG > diversity discussion into an absurd waste of time... > > -Martin >