--On Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:36 -0700 Jim Fenton <fenton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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: >... Briefly, 4846 is Informational because there is no mechanism for the IAB to publish documents in what is now called the IETF Stream (and BCPs are published only in that stream). The document was published in what we now call the IAB Stream because the RFC Editor function, including the Independent [Submission] Stream, operate under IAB authority (and have since before there was an IETF). The other important part of the relationship between 4846, 5792, and the predecessors of the latter, is that the ISE is not required to follow whatever advise the IESG provides. I think we would all hope and assume that the ISE would not reject such advice lightly, but a very important part of the relationship is the ability of the ISE to publish documents that are critical, even strongly so, of IETF Standards Track specifications and decisions. For that level of independence to be viable, the IESG cannot have veto power over publications of documents it doesn't like, whether that veto power requires cleverness to fit into one of those five (IESG-created) categories or not. >... > What is the appropriate forum to express opinions to the IESG > to inform their decision? While neither document requires the IESG to solicit such input, I would assume that they would be open to whatever comments are made to them at their usual address. Some sitting AD might want to provide more specific advice (or not). >... > I have sent my detailed review of the draft, hopefully meeting > those criteria, to Nevil. I hope he finds it useful. best, john