Brian,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The problem, Brian, is that the discussion is about IETF process, including
a serious question about decision(s) by the IESG.
...
I don't see the process issue. Snipping from the Last Call, it was perfectly
clear what the IESG planned to do.
There are two different process issues, here. Neither of them involves a
"process violation". By that, I mean, it does not appear that the formal steps
were violated. So this is not a question of initiating an appeal or the like.
Again, I'll observe that the issues are larger than the RAI area:
1. What should have been a simple process instead became complex, took a long
time, and produced a result that is at best questionable and at worst silly.
(Well, no. At worst it was extremely damaging, because it discourages further
use of the IETF.) As easy as it might be to fault the ITU folks for not
realizing that they did not need to get an RFC published, I'll note that a) it
is not appropriate for us to expect others to know the subtle intricacies of our
workings, and b) it appears that they were not the only ones who failed to
understand what is and is not required.
2. The community does not expect to be required to carefully read every Last
Call, to check for the possibility that the IESG is taking an exceptional and
action. Last Calls are usually issued for a review of the work, not IESG plans
for disposition of the work. In fact, Last Calls usually are issued before the
IESG has considered the tiem. So there is a minor question of bringing such
issues to the attention of the community rather more proactively, or at least
more distinctively.
Both of these points are much more broad than the technical question that the
RAI area might be appropriate to pursue.
(However, I am intrigued by a number of postings that suggest that the
underlying technical problem is due to a strategic MIME technical administration
error, within an RAI working group. This might make it problematic to expect
that area to deal with the particulars of the T.38 "solution".)
d/
ps. I can't resist noting how ironic it is that I'm trying to help any activity
involving T.38, given that I've never liked T.38 and given how much energy I put
into the T.37 (fax emulation via email) work. But I decided to add this comment
by way of making clear that my concerns are not with T.38, but with the slow and
frustrating process the ITU folks were subjected to, and the questionable
outcome that resulted. The IETF regularly proves to be remarkably hostile about
groups that come to us and ask for assistance.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf