On 2007-01-23 18:10, Craig Partridge wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 2007-01-23 16:04, John C Klensin wrote:
...
--On Tuesday, 23 January, 2007 15:59 +0200 Jari Arkko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
The net result of this model is that, if a document results from
an IETF process, it is unlikely to be published as an RFC unless
it receives either sponsorship or, at least a positive review
and recommendation, from the IESG _or_ it represents a critical
review of an IETF conclusion or inability to reach a conclusion.
That seems to exclude publication of simply dissenting views.
Is that the intention? Personally I am generally in favour
of the IETF publishing "road not followed" documents, but we do
have various instances of such things not getting published.
Should we exclude independent submission as a backstop mechanism?
Since the IESG was created, the issue of coordinating the RFC Editor's
decisions with the IESG has been something of a third rail.
I believe, from personal observations, that formalizing the
procedure via RFC 3932 has actually removed most of the third
rail effect. (I recognize that some people don't like the
boilerplate notes as they appear in 3932, but that is relatively
speaking a detail.)
And
labeling the independent RFC series as a place to document "road
not followed" (or more vigorously dissenting opinions) in defiance of
the IESG seems an invitation to institutional conflict.
I agree this creates a challenge, namely, that one can present a road
not followed provided it never appears in a WG, but actually participating
in a WG may cause the idea to be unpublishable as an RFC (assuming
a sufficiently unreasonable AD -- I assume a reasonable AD is happy to
allow such publications). But on balance, the current plan seems the
better of two evils. Here's my logic.
If the RFC Editor gets to publish road not followed documents
over IESG objections, we have institutional clashes if either
the RFC Editor is unreasonable or an AD is unreasonable.
If the IESG gets to determine if road not followed documents
are published, then the only clash is unreasonable AD with
authors.
But look at the appeal paths in both cases. A clash within
the IETF may end up with the IAB. A clash with the RFC Editor
may end up with an IAB review. So I'm not sure that there is that
much practical difference (once people start being unreasonable).
However, this isn't a showstopper issue for me. I'd rather
get this done soon, and trust people to be reasonable.
Brian
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
