I agree with Sam, for cases which would otherwise result in an endless DISCUSS - although normally I'd expect the argument to be complex enough that a separate RFC would be needed to explain the dissent.
Brian On 2010-03-12 09:58, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Sullivan <a...@shinkuro.com> writes: > > Andrew> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:02:53AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> That seems to cover most angles. I can't see why the IESG could > >> be expected to add technical disclaimers to a consensus > >> document. In fact, doing so would probably be a process violation > >> in itself. > > Andrew> Well, ok, and yes it probably would be a violation. But to > Andrew> defend the appelant, there might be a serious (though in my > Andrew> view totally wrong) point in the appeal. > > For what it's worth, I think it is entirely reasonable for the IESG to > add text raising technical concerns to a consensus document. The IESG > note, unlike the rest of the document reflects IESG consensus, even in > cases where the document is intended to reflect IETF consensus. > > Here's a case where I think it would be entirely appropriate for the > IESG to do so. The current process--both internal IESG procedure and > RFC 2026 requires some level of agreement from the IESG to publish a > document. If we had a case where it was clear that there was strong > community support for something that the IESG had serious concerns > about, I think it would be far bettor for the IESG to include its > concerns in an IESG note than to trigger a governance problem by > declining the document. Another option also open to the IESG would be > to write up its concerns in an informational document published later. > Without knowledge of specifics I cannot comment on which I'd favor. > > I have not read the current appeal and doubt that adding an IESG note is > the right solution to an appeal on technical grounds about a consensus > document. I simply don't want a legitimate case where adding an IESG > note to come up years later and people dig through this discussion and > find no objections to the claim that adding such a note would be a > process violation. > > --Sam > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf