I agree with the idea that there are extremes when we talk about our
ideas on "review", but please don't assume that JohnK and Michael are
the only people at that end of the pool...
I had assumed that the IETF would let IASA run things with periodic
general feedback and rare specific feedback (only in situations when
the feedback begins "we can't imagine why you ..."). The further we
move from that end of the spectrum, the less I understand why we need
an IASA in the first place.
Spencer
If I have correctly understood, you are at, or close to, one
extreme. Your view, as I understand it, is that the IASA should
be treated as a semi-independent body with periodic "reviews" of
its performance and little or no ability of the IETF community
(including the IAB and IESG) to interfere in any individual
decisions either before or after the fact.
deleted down to
At the other extreme are those who believe that the IASA is
really a functional subsidiary of the IETF, that all (or as many
as possible) of its decisions should be able to be overturned by
the IESG (or IAB, or both), that the community should be able to
appeal individual IAD decisions, with the potential of having
those decisions reversed and with the appeal chain running
though the IESG and IAB to, potentially, the ISOC Board as is
the case with standards-related decisions.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf