Dear Mr Rescorla,
At 03:45 AM 20-05-2019, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I'm not on any kind of I*, but when I was, the idea behind an IAB
shepherd was not that primarily that they provided a review but that
they helped the proponents of the work navigate the IETF process
(especially the BOF process) and get to a crisp problem statement,
etc. I never thought of it as a requirement, but rather something
that was intended to result in a more productive discussion.
Thank you for providing the above information.
The short draft was intended to be narrow in scope (re. crisp problem
statement). Some time back, I served as editor of a draft which was
discussed at length on this mailing list. My co-author also served
as editor of other drafts. He has much more experience than I do
with respect to getting drafts through the IETF process.
As a comment about IETF process, it was pointed out to me that a
Working Group Chair cannot author drafts within his/her working
group. That does not seem to be a problem for other Working Group
Chairs; some of them have been authored drafts in their working
groups. That can create a perception that the rule, if there is one,
is applied in different ways to different people. I am okay if the
IAB wishes to provide guidance on a problem statement about that as
part of the revision to IETF eligibility procedures.
I read draft-rescorla-istar-recall-00. One of the conclusions from
it is that the recall system is so unwieldy that it is undeployable
even in the most egregious cases. I could not figure out the
rationale for having an accountability mechanism which, by design, is
not intended to work.
There is the following sentence at the end of Section 3 of the draft:
"The Chair of the IETF may not be removed by expulsion". That is an
interesting proposal.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
