Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of I

The scope already says that the IESG is only supposed to comment on the 
relationship to existing work.  When the comments are on that topic, 
there has rarely been an issue.  (The one related difficulty is when the 
IESG has asked for reasonable delays, to let a working group get its 
product out, and then the WG has taken much longer than expected to 
deliver.)
However, even then the editor has needed to edit the words provided.  Of 
course, such editing has to be negotiated with the IESG.  (The edit can 
edit, but he can't put words in someone elses mouth.)

Part of the problem I face is that there is significant evidence that 
the IESG has unintentionally produced very biased and inappropriate 
text.  The ISE (RSE) needs to have a strong position from which to 
discuss such things.
I will grant that an unreasonable ISE can do unreasonable things.
There is no history of difficulties in the converse.

If the ISE / RSE is unreasonable, the IAB will slap the editor and say 
"stop doing that."  There is no equivalent process if we reverse the 
structure.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

Ben Campbell wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>
> > Making the IESG note mandatory, even if that required IETF agreement, 
> > would essentially give the IETf veto over the Independent stream.  The 
> > IESG would simply propose a note so extreme that no author would 
> > accept it on their document.  Given that I have seen proposed notes 
> > almost that bad in the past, I see no reason to believe it will not 
> > happen in the future.
> > Unless we wish to gut the Independent Stream of its right and 
> > important role of providing critical review of ongoing ideas, I would 
> > strongly recommend that the IAB not accept any procedure by which this 
> > would occur.
> > Remember, the IETF did not create the Independent Stream.  It arguably 
> > predates the existence of standards track documents.
> So can the mandate be scoped? It seems like a little word smithing could 
> distinguish between "notes to clarify relationship with standards work" 
> vs "commentary on the quality of the work".
> > Yours,
> > Joel
> >
> > Ben Campbell wrote:
> > > On Aug 31, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 , including the "IETF consensus call" part.
> > > > > > I don't understand how IETF consensus is relevant to a non-IETF 
> > > > > > document.
> > > > > Can't the IETF can have a consensus that a non-IETF document 
> > > > > relates to
> > > > > other IETF work in some way?
> > > > Well, yes, but that's a decision we have historically chosen to
> > > > trust the IESG to take. I see no evidence that that has been a problem,
> > > > and I didn't think Jari was reopening that aspect.
> > > Ah, sorry, I was agreeing with Brian Rosen statement that  a 
> > > concensus call was okay. I didn't mean (and I doubt he did, but he 
> > > can speak for himself) that I think we _needed_ one, only that if 
> > > that were the only way we could make an IESG request "binding", then 
> > > it was okay. If we feel we can trust the IESG on this, I'm okay with 
> > > it :-)
> > > > > > In fact the answer to Jari's question appears to be a matter of 
> > > > > > logic,
> > > > > > not of opinion. The IESG, which acts for the IETF, logically cannot
> > > > > > determine anything about the contents of a non-IETF document. So the
> > > > > > inclusion of an IESG note can only be a request.
> > > > > How would you expect the RFC editor to evaluate such a request? Under
> > > > > what circumstances would it be reasonable to refuse to include it?
> > > > Well, in the future it will be the Independent Series Editor. I would
> > > > expect him/her to take such a decision just like an academic journal
> > > > editor would decide how to deal with a critical review. I'd expect that
> > > > in the large majority of cases, the ISE would agree to the request,
> > > > and would only consider refusing it if he/she concluded that the 
> > > > IESG was
> > > > showing unreasonable bias.
> > > I assume an ISE could also who bias.
> > > It seems to me this all converges on deciding who has to appeal in a 
> > > dispute.
> > > >   Brian
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ietf mailing list
> > > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf