On 21/03/2014 12:18, Thomas Narten wrote:
Hi Stewart.
At the time when I was getting this ready for the IESG, there was a strong
view by the IESG that the IETF stream should not be used to publish
this type of document, i.e. that this type of draft should go to the
ISE. The view was that there were far too many AD sponsored drafts.
There was also a strong view expressed to me that the concept of IETF
consensus (necessary for AD sponsorship) was inappropriate if the
IETF could not change the technical solution, which it could not do if
the document was describing an existing deployed system.
If the above is really the case, I would have expected an IESG note to
the community documenting/proposing that position and allowing the
community to comment, as it seems to me to be a significant change in
policy and/or exisiting practice. Did I miss such a note?
And on this specific point:
There was also a strong view expressed to me that the concept of IETF
consensus (necessary for AD sponsorship) was inappropriate if the
IETF could not change the technical solution, which it could not do if
the document was describing an existing deployed system.
This would be a very significant change in policy wrt what the IETF
has historically published. I would not expect the IESG to make such a
shift unilaterally without significant consultation with the
community.
Thanks!
Thomas
.
My preference would be to remove the text, provided this did not
result in an immediate discuss stopping the text from progressing.
Stewart