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.
Yes, it's ludicrous. That's why I wanted to call out the case - if you
name this beast, people can see it's unreasonable.
*>
*> 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.
As Brian said - "not tested". The disclaimer may have helped.
But if we have public visibility into what the RFC Editor considers
publishing at one point, I think it may be much more likely that someone
else discovers that the document is harmful than it is that the IESG
does - that's one reason why I don't see a need to grant the IESG
special powers in this area.
I do think it's important to facilitate open communication about
documents under RFC Editor review.
Harald
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
