--On Monday, 12 June, 2006 12:02 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 18 May, 2006 17:16 -0400 The IESG
<iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
to consider the following document:
- 'IETF Process and Operations Documentss '
<draft-alvestrand-ipod-01.txt> as an Experimental RFC
This is a proposed process experiment under RFC 3933.
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
solicits final comments on this action. Please send any
comments to the iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org or ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
mailing lists
by 2006-06-15.
Hi.
I think this idea is generally a good one. It seems to me to
be quite desirable to bring all IETF procedural materials and
notes into a single series and to decouple the publication of
those materials from the RFC Editing process: the documents
are not archival and should not delay, or be delayed by,
technical specifications.
I have three concerns:
...
(3) The document is written on a model that I would describe
as "here are the principles, the IESG should sort out the
details". Personally, I think that is the right model, at
least as long as the IESG's decisions about details are
subject to appeal. But some of the members of previous IESGs
have expressed concerns that making similar decisions would
add to their workload or that documents were not acceptable
unless they contained much more specific detail.
To permit the community to evaluate this Last Call, it seems
to be to be critical to know whether the IESG is willing to
take on that responsibility.
It's clear to me that this experiment will only succeed
if it is run in a lightweight manner. By that I mean using
procedures like a formal last call, and an approval process
other
than "silence means consent", only when things are contentious.
I don't see the IESG responsibility being any different from
what happens today when, for example, 1id-guidelines gets
updated, or when an IESG Statement is issued.
I agree, modulo a comment that has been made elsewhere: in
general, anything that requires Last Call now and formal
publication now, such as a significant change in procedures,
requires that same level of processing under this model. In
other words, this is a way to collect documents together in a
coherent way, not a way to permit IESG to make major procedural
changes --changes it cannot make today-- on its own initiative.
Much as I like the general ideas behind this document, if the
above restriction is not clear to all concerned, I'd need to
oppose this particular proposal.
It would also be helpful to know whether
the IESG will consider these documents, especially the ones
that define the parameters of the series, to be subject to
the usual appeal procedures when they are adopted and
published.
Recently the IESG has chosen to interpret the right of appeal
broadly, even though the text in RFC 2026 is unclear about
scope.
I don't see how we could refuse to consider an appeal about an
ION, although I'd hope that we could normally resolve issues
without the need for it.
I would hope we could normally resolve all issues by informal
discussion rather than appeals. History indicates that
sometimes we cannot.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf