Dave, et. al.,
This is quite a complex situation, and I am a bit confused about it myself...
We have a document that says that an IP option number can be
allocated based on IESG approval, IETF consensus or standards action
processes, right?
So, based on our own standards and BCPs, we have given the IESG the
authority to allocate an IP option number.
Can we really give the IESG that authority and not also give the IESG
the authority to say 'no'?
In this particular case, the IESG was asked to approve the assignment
of an IP option number to this document, and we chose to say 'no'.
The criteria by which the IESG would make this determination are not
documented. In this case, we decided that this specific proposal
presents significant enough technical issues and incompatibilities
with existing IETF specifications that we didn't feel comfortable
assigning an IP option number for this purpose.
I don't think the fact that the IESG did not choose to exercise its
authority to allocate this IP option number precludes the proponents
of this allocation from attempting to gain IETF consensus (for which
they would presumably need to publish their draft as an I-D and make
any IPR holding clear), nor does it preclude the authors of this
document from attempting to publish the document as an IETF standard
(which would also mean publishing it as an I-D).
Of course, I do understand that these three options are not _really_
as separate as RFC 2434 seems to indicate that they are... In order
to establish IETF consensus, it is practically necessary to gain
Brian Carpenter's cooperation, as he is (as far as I know) the only
person who can really put a question the IETF and judge our consensus
on the response. And, to publish a document on the standards track,
it would be necessary to get at least one IESG member to sponsor the
work and to get IESG approval to publish the document.
Personally, I think that if the IETF doesn't want to give the IESG
the right to approve (and refuse to approve) the allocation of IP
options, then the IETF should update RFC 2780.
Margaret
At 9:53 AM -0700 6/29/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
we need to allow IESG to use some discretion here.
what *kind* of discretion?
should we allow the IESG the discretion to decide what they
like or don't like and then allow them the authority to make the
decision based on that?
or, should we allow the IESG the discretion to note potential
issues and then allow them the authority to raise seek review and
consensus from the IETF?
and, of course, there are more alternatives to consider "allowing",
but these two highlight the underlying question here.
I could have sworn that Dave Clark preceded the "rough consensus"
reference with a reference about our not assigning decision-making
authority to a delegate. He named kings and presidents.
So it is not ok to have a king or a president, but it *is* ok to
have an oligarchy?
--
d/
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf