At 08:06 15-05-2013, Keith Moore wrote:
IMO, IESG should have grounds to reject any document that isn't
specifically authorized in a WG's charter.
I read a few charters:
core:
Dec 2099 - HOLD (date TBD) Constrained security bootstrapping specification
submitted to IESG
ancp:
Sep 2010 - Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) Last Call
Dec 2010 - ANCP MIB Last Call
Dec 2010 - ANCP Multicast Extensions last call
Jan 2011 - ANCP applicability to PON last call
Mar 2011 - Re-charter or conclude Working Group
6man:
Jan 2008 - Submit PPP Compression Negotiation specification to IESG as a
Proposed Standard
Mar 2008 - Determine way forward for ULA-C specification
l2tpext:
Mar 2008 - Submit Internet-Draft of PPP over L2TPv3 to IESG
Done - WG Last Call on TDM over L2TPv3
Jun 2008 - WG Last Call on IP over L2TPv3
drinks:
Apr 2012 - Request publication of SPPP over SOAP Document
Apr 2012 - Request publication of Framework Document
straw:
Nov 2011 - Specification for a SIP overload control mechanism based on
implicit/explicit feedback to IESG for publication as
Proposed Standard
Feb 2012 - Specification for a SIP load filtering mechaism to IESG
for publication
as Proposed Standard
idr:
Mar 2010 - Solicit work items for scalability improvements
Aug 2010 - Submit AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4 to IESG
as a Proposed Standard
Aug 2010 - Submit Dynamic Capability for BGP-4 to IESG as a
Proposed Standard
Aug 2010 - Submit ASpath ORF draft to IESG as a Proposed Standard
Aug 2010 - Submit MIB v2 for BGP-4 to IESG as a Proposed Standard
Nov 2010 - Submit BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space
(revised version) to
IESG as a Proposed Standard
Nov 2010 - Submit Revisions to the BGP 'Minimum Route
Advertisement Interval' to
IESG as a Proposed Standard
Nov 2010 - Submit Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP to IESG
as a Proposed Standard
Nov 2010 - Submit BGP Link Bandwidth Extended Community to IESG as
a Proposed Standard
Nov 2010 - Submit Advertisement of the best external route in BGP to IESG as
a Proposed Standard
Dec 2010 - Submit Multisession BGP to IESG as a Proposed Standard
Dec 2010 - Submit Error Handling for Optional Transitive BGP Attributes to
IESG as a Proposed Standard
Dec 2010 - Submit ASpath ORF to IESG as a Proposed Standard
Dec 2010 - Revise WG charter
pim:
Aug 2011 - First WG version of udated RFC 4601
Aug 2011 - Submit a more reliable PIM solution (refresh reduction)
to the IESG
Nov 2011 - Submit a population count extension to PIM to the IESG
Dec 2011 - Submit update of RFC 4601 to IESG for advancement to
Draft Standard
pkix:
Sep 2007 - Progression of CRMF, CMP, and CMP Transport to DRAFT Standard
Sep 2007 - Progression of Qualified Certificates Profile RFC to
DRAFT Standard
Sep 2007 - Progression of Certificate & CRL Profile RFC to DRAFT Standard
Sep 2007 - Progression of Time Stamp Protocols RFC to DRAFT Standard
Sep 2007 - Progression of Logotype RFC to DRAFT Standard
Nov 2007 - Progression of Proxy Certificate RFC to DRAFT Standard
Nov 2007 - Progression of Attribute Certificate Profile RFC to
DRAFT standard
Feb 2008 - Update to CMC approved as PROPOSED Standard
Mar 2008 - ECC Algorithms approved as PROPOSED Standard RFC
Mar 2008 - Progression of CMC RFCs to DRAFT Standard
Mar 2008 - SCVP approved as PROPOSED Standard RFC
ippm:
Nov 2010 - Final version of process draft
Nov 2010 - Implementation report based on process draft
Mar 2011 - Revise charter
ppsp:
Dec 2010 - Submit problem statement to IESG as Informational
Apr 2011 - Submit architectural survey to IESG as Informational
Apr 2011 - Submit requirements document to IESG as Informational
Aug 2011 - Submit PPSP peer protocol to IESG as Proposed Standard
Aug 2011 - Submit PPSP tracker protocol to IESG as Proposed Standard
Dec 2011 - Submit usage guide to IESG to IESG as Informational
I did not verify whether the drafts mentioned about left the working
group or not. The IESG would be rejecting a lot of documents if it
looked into what was authorized by the charter.
At 08:33 15-05-2013, Yoav Nir wrote:
Why? There's definitely a process failure there, and it should be
blamed on the WG chairs and/or the AD, who should have either moved
the work out of the working group or worked on updating the charter.
There would be a lot of WG chairs and/or ADs to blame as there are
dates up to five years in the past in the charter extracts mentioned above.
At 07:25 15-05-2013, Joe Touch wrote:
Well, there are IESG members who stand their ground even when it's
incorrect, such as:
- claiming that determining WG consensus is up to the AD,
then repeatedly demanding evidence of that consensus
If there was WG consensus it shouldn't be much of a problem to
provide evidence. I read a write-up recently where "strong
consensus" is mentioned. I took a quick look at the mailing list
archives and I saw the WGLC message; the next message about the draft
was the AD review.
Regards,
-sm