On 4/20/15 6:49 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, April 20, 2015 14:08 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/removal-of-an-internet-draft.html
Exactly. We could always turn that into a BCP I suppose,
Separate from the usual question of the IESG setting IETF
policy by fiat without explicitly developing IETF rough
consensus...
I think that's a bit inflammatory and accusatory, and in this case
incorrect. The IESG proposed this publicly before publishing it, and a
3-week long community discussion took place, in which many of the
present discussants took part:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=c&q=subject%3A(Removal+of+an+Internet-Draft)&as=1&so=date
The policy was not set by the IESG by fiat, but rather resulted from
community deliberations. Now, there wasn't a *formal* call for
consensus, but even so, I can't find any mention in that discussion of
anyone saying, "This needs to be a formal consensus of the IETF,
documented as a BCP, not just an IESG statement" or anything like that.
Perhaps people don't feel that they can do that, or ought to in the face
of a proposal from the IESG, but I have a hard time believing that none
of the senior participants on this list felt that they could. Either
way, I think accusing the IESG of "setting policy by fiat" in this case
is wrong.
ietf.org -> "Internet Drafts"
<http://www.ietf.org/id-info/
There, the only the text they will see on removal is:
"Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to
change or removal at any time;"
If the IESG statement is, in fact, IETF policy on Internet
Draft removal, it probably should be cited on that page.
Agreed.
+1 to David's comments.
One additional observation. I've read, and tried working with,
the IESG statement before this. IMO, and based on discussions
with Counsel and a DMCA contributor long enough ago that I was
concerned about personal liability, the statement almost
certainly needs work, if only because there are scenarios where
making the sole mechanism for determining whether an I-D should
be taken down a matter of IESG consensus discretion may be
inappropriate. Consider, without getting into lawyer-land by
speculating on effects, the following scenarios:
This was discussed publicly, and by the IESG, when this topic came up.
Without diving into the detail of all 200 of the IETF list messages and
minutes of IESG discussions, my memory is that we thought a bad idea to
put the secretariat or the IAD in the position of making a legal (or
other potentially controversial) call to remove something from the
public archive without the IESG giving an "OK". For example, even if the
IETF received a legal notice requiring removal of a draft from the
public archive, where the secretariat or IAD might be inclined to simply
take the action, the IESG might ask the IAD to inquire about the
possibility of filing a legal challenge before undertaking the action.
But I can't tell from your list whether your concern is simply about the
potential delay in having the IESG coming to consensus, or rather the
possibility that the IESG goes nuts and doesn't listen to legal advice
when it is asked for its OK. While it's possible for the latter to
happen I suppose, it's not something I think we need really to account for.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478