On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 5:44 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 5:18 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:56 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi,
Without any judgement, I wondered how this document relates to the IESG's discuss criteria.[0]
In particular, this part: "Does this document represent an end run around the IETF's working groups or its procedures?"
How does this document relate to this IESG procedure?It would preclude the IESG from publishing non-consensus documents, which seems like a chance in procedure.OK, I see. I support this change. They can always allow it on the other streams, as detailed below.Would publishing a dissenting document on the independent stream constitute such an "end run"?I don't see how that relates to this document given that independent stream documents are by definition not in the IETF stream and therefore are not subject to IESG discusses. See https://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?doc=5742 for more on this.Maybe I'm confused about this, or shouldn't have used the term "discuss criteria" (though [0] contained the term, as well as the section on "Document Classes Reviewed by the IESG").
All of these document classes apply only to the IETF stream.
However, there are a bunch of ways for the IESG to block publication of IRTF or Independent Stream documents given in RFC 5742.
This seems off topic for this document, which, as noted above, only refers to the IETF stream.
-Ekr
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
