Adrian Farrel wrote:
But I would like for this to be a debate/negotiation. If
the RFC Editor (for whatever good reason) wishes to leave the note out
and the IESG wishes (for some other equally good reason) to leave the
note in, we need to be able to resolve the conflict.
Options clearly are:
- RFC Editor has the power
- IESG has the power
- A third party (RSE?) has the power
- IESG and RFC Editor are required to reach consensus
We do need the community to make this decision.
The fact that the RFC Editor has not yet completely denied an IESG desire to
have a note affixed to a draft is significant. And it's expensive to define
another layer of mechanism, like appeal to a third party. And independence of
the RFC Editor seems to generally be a Good Thing.
If the RFC Editor were to refuse adding a note, what is the likelihood that this
would be due to making a horribly wrong decision? And what is likely to be the
real damage from it?
There is plenty of subjective indication that RFC readers are not nearly as
careful as any of us would like. Adding IESG Notes is an appropriate matter of
due diligence, but in the extraordinarily rare -- ie, unlikely -- case of a
refusal to add, do we really need a special mechanism? Is the likely damage
that great?
The RFC Editor already has significant accountability. If it made a refusal
that was inappropriate, there would probably be a deeper problem to deal with.
So I 'vote' for a simple choice: The RFC Editor has the power.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf