If you think security and congestion are arcane, you have... problems. This was an actual ietf working geoup, and not some e.g. W3c thing? Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ ________________________________________ From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of t.p. [daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 12 April 2013 21:52 To: Arturo Servin; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Purpose of IESG Review ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arturo Servin" <arturo.servin@xxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:28 PM > > Not answering any particular post. Just a comment. > > The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was followed > and the document reached consensus in the WG and in the IETF LC and it > was successfully reviewed by the Gen-ART. If it wasn't then this > particular process should be reviewed and take actions accordingly (e.g. > returning the document to the wg). > > But if a single individual of the IESG can technically challenge and > change the work of a whole WG and the IETF, then we have something wrong > in our process because that means that the document had a serious > problem and we didn't spot it in the process or an IESG member is using > its power to change a document according to its personal beliefs. My experience has been the former, where the IESG has raised concerns about arcane topics, such as security and congestion, of which the WG had limited expertise. This might be caught by a directorate review, but those seem patchy; it might be caught by IETF Last Call, but if you are an expert at an arcane topic then you are probably too busy to follow them. So I do see the IESG DISCUSSing, when it would have been lovely to have had, but it is hard to see quite how, it resolved earlier. We just do not have the breadth of knowledge of arcane topics. Tom Petch > Just a thought, > as > > On 4/11/13 2:54 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > Hi, all, > > > > As an author who has had (and has) multiple documents in IESG review, > > I've noticed an increasing trend of this step to go beyond (IMO) its > > documented and original intent (BCP 9, currently RFC 2026): > > > > The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to > > it according to section 6.1.1 satisfies the applicable criteria for > > the recommended action (see sections 4.1 and 4.2), and shall in > > addition determine whether or not the technical quality and clarity > > of the specification is consistent with that expected for the > > maturity level to which the specification is recommended. > > > > Although I appreciate that IESG members are often overloaded, and the > > IESG Review step is often the first time many see these documents, I > > believe they should be expected to more clearly differentiate their > > "IESG Review" (based on the above criteria) - and its accompanying > > Position ballot, with their personal review. > > > > 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. > > > > How do others feel about this? > > > > Joe >