Harald and all,
I "Guess" that a IETF consensus really means whatever you Harald
says it means much like what consensus meant while you were
Chair of the DNSO GA. But to be honest, no consensus can be
determined unless it is measured, which means a VOTE must be
held amongst IETF participants. Perish the thought, eh Harald?! >;)
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Thread B from my previous message..... this is being CCed to the POISED
list, for reasons that may be obvious after reading the message; for POISED
subscribers - this is followup to an IETF list thread.
Question:
What review process must the IESG take before taking the action to block or
allow publication of such an internet-draft (ie "what does IETF Consensus
mean")?
This is not written in RFC 2434.
Some tactics that have been used in the past to gather information for the
IESG's decision include:
- "It's obviously OK". Approved WG document, or competently written
documentation from subject matter experts, reviewed by people with
competence on the specific registry. The IESG looks at it and thinks that
it's obvioiusly right. Example: application/ogg, documented in
draft-walleij-ogg-mediatype.
- Subject matter expert group review. For instance, posting to the DHC WG
asking for opinions on a DHCP extension. WG chairs' feedback will carry a
lot of weight.
- IETF Last Call for Informational/Experimental, with the IESG evaluating
the feedback.
In all cases, the IESG has to evaluate; there's no other established body
to do it. "The buck stops here".
Among the cases to consider:
- Everyone approves. Go for it.
- Nobody cares. No comments; the IESG will usually decide that nobody saw
any looming danger to the Internet, and allow the registration.
- Serious objections. The comments clearly indicate that the registration
would be harmful to the Internet (and how), and the IESG agrees with that
evaluation. The IESG will refuse.
- Incompetent or incomplete document. The IESG will usually object to this
on its own - without documentation clear enough to determine whether this
is OK or harmful, it would be remiss of the IESG to let the document go
forward even to an IETF Last Call.
We can't claim IETF consensus on something we can't understand.
- Dissension within the IETF. Like in the case of a WG, the IESG has to
evaluate the arguments on their merits; obviously the proposers think that
the registration should be allowed, and opposition without a rational basis
should no more be allowed to block this registration than it should be
allowed to block WG progress. But as the saying goes - "this is why you get
the big bucks".
Among the things to consider here is that the determination must be made in
a timely fashion - sometimes there are reasons why letting debate rage for
another 6 months doesn't seem like an attractive option.
Questions for the audience:
- should this description, or something like it, go into
draft-iesg-procedures?
- are there guidelines that the IESG should use when trying to determine
the right outcome in the "dissension" case?
- does this debate belong on the POISED list, together with the discussion
of the IESG charter and the IESG procedures?
Thoughts?
Harald
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1(_at_)ix(_dot_)netcom(_dot_)com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801