Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 12:26:31 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>
Message-ID: <B0E3C978F498DC96D6CED4DA(_at_)B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
| So we've got two possible interpretations:
|
| - The authors and the community that let this be published thought that
| there were some cases where the IESG could make a decision without
| consulting the community. Presumably this included "no" decisions.
|
| - The authors and the community did not understand that there was a
| difference between "IESG Approval" and "IETF Consensus".
|
| I trust the competence of these authors, so I think the first decision is a
| reasonable one.
I agree with every word of that.
The question is, upon what basis should the IESG make the yes/no decision.
Some apparently believe (and I suspect that most or many of the IESG,
and recent past IESGs are included) that it means "for whatever reason
the IESG concludes is appropriate".
I do not agree. To me, everything in 2434 is talking about what level
of documentation should be required to register a parameter (code point,
whatever you want to call it) via the IANA. The "IESG approval"
section contains nothing to suggest it should be different. To the
contrary, it expressly says that no RFC (ie: one documentation possiblilty)
is required, but that the IESG can request more documentation if it feels it
necessary. Everything is about documentation.
Documentation is the subject to be judged, and should be the sole
basis for the yes/no decision.
If you agree with that, then we are in total agreement, and I'd suggest
that you should have yourself moved from the "satisfied" to the
"dissatisfied" column in Ken Carlberg's list.
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf