At 12:52 PM -0800 3/6/08, Russ Housley wrote:
Once this discussion is over, the future of IONs should be clear, and
I will share with the whole IETF community the outcome of the experiment.
Russ,
Whatever the fate of IONs in general, it is clear to me that
this document does not belong in the series. It needs community
consensus that binds the IESG and the rest of the community; as
a statement of the IESG (and which is subject to update by the IESG)
it does not have the force it needs. At the moment it is completely
lacking in such force.
I look forward to the IESG statements on the series
as a whole. But please understand that if the IESG indicates an
intent to retain this document at the end of that in this series I would
appeal.
I respect your work, but I believe the IESG has recently
relaxed the vigilance it once held toward adherence to these criteria.
I have seen at least two recent discusses that amounted to
"go satisfy that guy" and several cut and paste external reviews where
it was blindingly obvious the AD had not even looked at the
most recent version of the text. I have also seen quite a few
that amount to "Disagreement with informed working group
decisions" where the AD is putting their preferences over
any real acknowledgement that a working group has considered
the issues.
The only way I know of to make sure the IESG restores
the focus on this issue (which took a lot of our energy several years
ago) is to make it binding on the IESG. I hope that you, personally,
agree that it should be community-based and binding on the IESG
and that we are simply discussing the mechanism by which that
occurs. If you do not agree that it should be binding on the IESG
and a consensus statement of the community, I am interested to know
why.
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf