Either I don't understand it or I don't agree. I allow that I don't
In the first paragraph it seem like anyone can ask for a decision to be
In subsequent paragraphs it appears that anyone is limited to IAOC, IAB
and IESG members because no one is required to review the questions of
anyone other then those in an I*. And while someone can ask for help
from the IAB/IESG when their question is ignored, I don't understand
why the level of indirection. I think that anyone in the community
should be able to go to the IAOC with an issue.
I also think it is a work overload issue. In a sense the IAOC is being
created to offload the administrative issues from the IAB/IESG. So why
buffer them from the public's problems?
I think the IAOC should be required to respond to a request for review
from the IETf community without requiring IAB or IESG intervention.
On 13 jan 2005, at 07.27, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made
the decision. It is up to that body to decide to make a response,
and on the form of a response.
The IAD is required to respond to requests for a review from the
IAOC, and the IAOC is required to respond to requests for a review
of a decision from the IAB or from the IESG.
If members of the community feel that they are unjustly denied a
response to a request for review, they may ask the IAB or the IESG
to make the request on their behalf.
Answered requests for review and their responses are made public.
I think that should be enough - the IAD and IAOC can route all
frivolous requests to /dev/null; the decision of the IESG to not ask
the IAOC for a review is an IESG action that can be handled in the
usual way; there is no formal "I can overturn your decision" involved;
if the IAOC shows a pattern of replying "go away" when a review is
requested, that becomes a matter of public record, and can be used at
Does this seem like a reasonable point on the various scales of
Ietf mailing list