Bob Braden wrote:
*> So the cases where we have a conflict are:
*>
*> 1) The RFC Editor decides to publish documents that it knows are harmful
*> to the Internet
Harald,
This case is ludicrous. The RFC Editor would certainly never publish a
document that it believes to be harmful to the Internet. However, in
fact no one can ever know for sure whether harm will result from
publication of any particular specification. It is all relative.
I assume that Harald included this case as something of a reductio
ad absurdum - and I assume we all agree that such a foolish (and
unlikely) decision would be grounds for action by the IAB.
*>
*> 2) The RFC Editor disagrees with the IESG about whether or not they are
*> harmful to the Internet
This is the only meaningful case, and it is the one that causes
conflict. For example, the IESG feared that RFC 2188 would harm the
Internet, but the RFC Editor finally decided that we did not believe
it, and published anyway. I don't think there was any harm as a
result.
The question really is whether ESRO *would* be harmful if widely
deployed. I don't think, judging by www.esro.org, that this question
has been tested.
There have been half a dozen cases over the past 8 years when the RFC
Editor really did not believe the IESG's claim of harm, but we chose not
to publish just because we wanted to be cooperative with the IESG.
Just to say it again: the currently agreed process, RFC 3932, *does not allow*
the IESG to use this justification for a Do Not Publish recommendation. It
certainly doesn't prevent the IESG (or individuals in the IESG) expressing
such an opinion, but that is a different matter.
Brian
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
