Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:37:31 +0300 From: Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@piuha.net> Message-ID: <4a9d239b.7070...@piuha.net>
| Right, and we are not. That is very good to hear. I haven't been watching much of recent IETF happenings (last few years) so I explicitly make no comment about anything that has happened recently. In the past however, back when I was more involved, there were occasions when that was certainly not the case - there were cases where the IESG decided that a proposal (an independent submission) would really be bad for the internet, and requested (and perhaps even published) notes with comments along the lines of how insecure, unscalable, and generally horrid some document was, and strongly advising the world to ignore it. That's all technical discussion, and none of that should ever be a part of an IESG note requested to be added to a doc. Given that, what's left for an IESG note pretty much amounts to "this does not represent IETF consensus" or "Readers should also see RFCxxxx for an alternative solution" - neither of which are very likely to be ignored by the editor - or in fact, by the doc author if requested of him or her - so there should be no need for mandatory addition of notes, just a request should be enough (ie: if one ever is refused, the chances are really pretty good that it should never have been requested.) One final note, none of this, of course, prevents anyone, including IESG members, writing their own independent submission, criticising some other proposal (in a different RFC) - such a thing could even be made an IETF consensus doc if desired - that's all reasonable,but of course takes more effort, and real considered and supported arguments, an IESG note to the same effect is just the lazy way out, and should never be used (and to repeat my opening comment, I am not claimimg that it has any time recently, I simply have no idea.) kre _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf