Re: Should the IESG rule or not? and all that...



Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Joe,

...

Re-reviewing 2026, in all places the IESG is noted as being largely
reactive to the community and guiding process.

Only sec 6.1.2 notes the application of technical judgement, but only
regarding maturity of the document and the standards level being sought
- specifically as "technical quality and clarity". It specifically notes
that (emphasis mine) "_independent_ technical review" can be solicited
if there are issues of its impact on the Internet architecture.


You are quoting very selectively. The context is rather different from
what you imply:

   In order to obtain all of the information necessary to make these
   determinations, particularly when the specification is considered by
   the IESG to be extremely important in terms of its potential impact
   on the Internet or on the suite of Internet protocols, the IESG may,
   at its discretion, commission an independent technical review of the
   specification.

In other words, the IESG gets to make the judgement call, but may choose
to get an independent review. This happens. As a matter of fact, I do
it every two weeks for all the drafts on the agenda, and Harald did it
before
me. It's all public, see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html.

Right now, the IESG is conducting its own, non-independent technical
review - therein lies the issue, IMO.


It's very clear that RFC 2026 sets the IESG up as the reviewer of
last resort (modulo the appeal process). I really don't understand
your issue except perhaps as a criticism of 2026. If the IESG isn't
to be the reviewer of last resort, who should it be?


An independent body - one that doesn't get to decide the importance of
its own review.

Perhaps it is a criticism of 2026 if there are so many varying
interpretations.

...

Conflict of interest is covered in RFC 3710 (which isn't a BCP, as it was
a first cut).


Asking people to recuse themselves for conflict of interest is very
different from not putting the decision in front of them. While the
former is always required, it doesn't avoid the utility of the latter.

Joe

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf