> Le 2015-02-17 à 18:58, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > Sam, the document is in the IETF stream (NOT the IAB stream), and Jari > is the responsible AD. Jari will, of course, do the usual job of the > responsible AD and will be the one responsible for evaluating > consensus, with the oversight of the IESG as a whole. yes. I think Sam was referring to my unappropriate use of the word concensus in first item of the summary, which caused confusion. My bad. Marc. > > I don't see this as being any different to any individual submission, > which is what this looks like from a procedural point of view. > > Barry > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi. >> >> >> The message below sounds like it perports to be a judgment of consensus >> and a summary of last call comments ffor a draft being published as IETF >> stream as a standards action. >> This document is authored by the IAB. >> >> Mark Blanchet, the author of this message is an IAB member. >> >> I have a huge process concern with this. I'd expect that the person >> judging consensus for an IETF last call on a standards action would be a >> member of the IESG, and especially not one of the authors of the draft, >> which for an IAB document should include the entire IAB. >> >>> From time to time the IESG might delegate that role to a document >> shepherd who is not a member of the IESG. I'd expect that the IESG >> member would still ultimately judge consensus, but I can see a shepherd >> writing up an initial message. I think such a delegation to an IAB >> member for an IAB document is entirely inappropriate. >> >> I'm very uncomfortable with the apparent process here and believe that >> that to avoid doubt a member of the IESG needs to step in and make their >> own independent assessment of the last call comments. >> If my understanding is correct and we've already misstepped here, I >> think delegation would be inappropriate in this instance. >> >> --Sam >>