Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> (IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus) to Best Current Practice

[Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adrian:

The meet of the document is:

   The IETF MUST NOT publish RFCs on the IETF stream without

   establishing IETF rough consensus for publication.

This seems to apply to AD sponsored and WG sponsored documents.  My thought was that an IESG statement would get the same result with less effort.

Russ

On Jan 25, 2020, at 12:59 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Russ,

 

I believe you are misreading what the IESG statement says.

 

The first paragraph of Section 4 refers to “AD Sponsored documents to Standards Track” and to “AD Sponsored documents to Experimental/Informational”. It does not mention documents coming out of a working group.

 

It was a fine IESG statement (if a bit lengthy 😊) but seems designed to cover AD sponsored documents only.

 

For almost as long as I can recall, the IESG has applied a policy of always holding an IETF last call on every document. That seems to be an IESG prerogative, but I don’t see it written down anywhere.

 

It is, of course, possible for the IESG to issue a further statement on this. I believe Joel’s point may be that what the IESG giveth, the IESG may take away: but if the community likes the idea of a last call on all documents then putting it into the process of record would be the right thing.

 

I think Joel makes one other point which may be splitting hairs, or might be paranoid, but does no harm to fix. Holding an IETF last call, is not the same as not publishing a document until there is rough consensus.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

From: last-call <last-call-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: 25 January 2020 15:28
To: last-call@xxxxxxxx
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx>; Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> (IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus) to Best Current Practice

 

Joel and EKR:

 

 this document deliberately addresses a very narrow issue that while admittedly rare has come up a few times.

 

In 2007, the IESG published this statement: https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/area-director-sponsoring-documents/

 

In this statement, the IESG says that it will not approve any document without an IETF Last Call.  See the first paragraph of Section 4.

 

I suggest a better way forward would be to post an updated IESG statement that requires consensus as well.

 

Russ

 

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call