On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 6:21 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
A close reading of RFC 5742, something I suggest the authors undertake, would show this not to be the case.
thanks,
Rob
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
