On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 6:06 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 5:56 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:This document makes no change to the interaction of the IESG with other
streams. It is strictly about the IETF stream. As such, the rest of
this is out of scope for the document.
As a matter of documented procedure, the IESG can request various things
of the IRTF stream or the Independent Stream, but can not block
publication. (For example, they can request non-publication of
Independent Stream documents, but the final decision rests with the
ISE.) This is either a feature or a bug, depending upon a lot of other
views one has.Sure, I just think there's an angle here that's not being considered. I agree with the goal of the document.Maybe also give the IESG a SHOULD requirement to recommend one of the RFC 5742 nastygrams detailed in section 3 of that document, should publication be requested on another stream.
You should feel free to propose this via the GENDISPATCH process, but that's not what this document is about. It has nothing to do with the ISE.
-Ekr
thanks,Rob
Yours,
Joel
On 1/24/2020 8:44 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 5:18 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ekr@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:56 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto: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"). However, there are a bunch of
> ways for the IESG to block publication of IRTF or Independent Stream
> documents given in RFC 5742.
>
> thanks,
> Rob
>
> [0] https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/iesg-discuss-criteria/
>
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
