Rob, this document deliberately addresses a very narrow issue that while
admittedly rare has come up a few times.
If you want to write a document to change the interaction between the
IESG and the ISE (and thus the IESG and the Independent Stream) I can't
stop you. But I will not use this document to take sides on what should
or should not change in that space. And what was approved by the
Gendispatch group, and sponsored by the general AD, is this narrow scope.
Yours,
Joel
On 1/24/2020 10:01 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 6:40 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:ekr@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Well, I've red 5742, and I don't see what you are getting it. I
would suggest you make your point explicitly.
Well, it doesn't appear that you (as a document author) had read
https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/iesg-discuss-criteria/
since you used RFC 5742 as an objection, although it in fact details
some of the "iesg-discuss-criteria" procedures you said didn't exist.
You've also said RFC 5742 is irrelevant, and yet it also updates 2026 in
similar cases, so I suggest taking a closer look.
I think the name "RFC" is what matters to most submitters, and the
stream less so. I also don't think a club of 50-100 people who decide
what's allowed to be published (based on how they feel) is very healthy.
That's why I'd suggest actually considering policy around documents that
fail to achieve consensus. Where are these "Informational or
Experimental RFCs to be published without IETF rough consensus" going to
go? Should the IESG recommend them for the independent stream? Or would
they be an "end-run"?
What are the specific recent cases this draft is seeking to address? It
might be helpful to look at recent drafts that would not qualify under
this proposed BCP.
thanks,
Rob
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
