On 5/1/14 7:53 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> I recommend a careful reading of RFC 4846 before doing so, but,
> with the understanding that there is no consensus process
> involved and this list is definitely the wrong place to have, or
> even copy, the discussion, if someone had well-thought-out
> opinions as to whether that document should be published in the
> Independent Stream and/or what completeness conditions should be
> imposed on it, the ISE is typically willing to accept
> unsolicited reviews. Similarly, if someone felt like generating
> a well-reasoned critique, posting it as an I-D, and asking that
> the ISE consider publication, I assume such a request would at
> least be considered.
I'd like to understand the relationship of RFC 4846, which is
Informational, with RFC 5792/BCP 92 here. The latter gives IESG 5
options for review of independent submissions for conflicts with the
IETF standards process, such as:
5. The IESG has concluded that this document extends an IETF protocol
in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
published without IETF review and IESG approval.
What is the appropriate forum to express opinions to the IESG to inform
their decision?
>
> I am definitely not speaking for Nevil or predicting his
> reactions, but I would suggest one caution: RFC 4846 and
> established practice gives the ISE far more flexibility (and,
> indeed, license) to ignore or discard repetition, ranting,
> strongly-stated opinions that are not grounded in solid
> references or generally-accepted facts, etc., than, e.g., IESG
> members have in response to IETF Last Call comments. So, if
> anyone decides to go that route, I'd suggest that they do so
> with as high a level of professionalism as they can manage.
I have sent my detailed review of the draft, hopefully meeting those
criteria, to Nevil.
-Jim