|
RE: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes
2009-09-03 03:08:29
John,
Your suggestion would largely address my concerns related to the
timely appeal path.
Best regards,
Pasi
-----Original Message-----
From: ext John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com]
Sent: 02 September, 2009 20:20
To: Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki); jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com;
ben(_at_)estacado(_dot_)net
Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory
nature of IESG notes
--On Tuesday, September 01, 2009 09:55 +0200
Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com wrote:
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
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.
Yes, there is. If the IESG would request/recommend a
particularly bad IESG note, this decision can be appealed just
like any other IESG decision. The IAB would then determine if
the IESG acted appropriately or not.
On the other hand, if the ISE/RSE decides to publish a document
without an IESG note even if the IESG requested/recommended
it, this decision cannot be effectively appealed (since the
RFC already came out, and can't be really "recalled").
Although I'm not expecting this really to happen very often
(if ever), from checks-and-balances viewpoint I would support
(b) from Jari's email (in other words: RFC Editor cannot
unilaterally ignore a note requested by IESG, but has to take
it to the IAB via the usual appeal procedures).
Pasi,
A comment and then a suggested middle position.
I've been watching what we now call the Independent Submission
Process for far longer than there has been an IETF. I've seen
it as an insider for a large fraction of two decades -- as an
AD, an IAB member and then chair, as an editorial board member,
and now as an IAB member again. During that period, I've never
seen an RFC Editor abuse the process by ignoring legitimate
input. Bob Braden may be able to provide an inside view --not
in his present role of RFC Editor but as the very-long-time IAB
Exec Director -- of what happened before 1992, but my educated
guess is that instances of "RFC Editor ignores input" during
that time were also about zero.
During the same period, I'd seen behavior I consider abusive
from ADs or the IESG many times -- attempting to prevent
publication of documents with which they had personal/ emotional
disagreements that they were unwilling or unable to explain in
public, asking for publication holds on documents for multiples
of years, insisting that the RFC Editor not move forward until
the IESG responds in some way and then not responding for months
and months, demanding changes that would significantly weaken
the document or change its meaning, and so on. Many of those
problems have been resolved by negotiation, but some have not.
RFC 3932, and its limitation on technical review, was a huge
improvement over its predecessors in that regard, but we've
heard multiple ADs over the years claim that they can redefine
any disagreement about a document into either a technical issue
or a technical one (whichever is needed) if they care enough and
especially if they can define the boundary (which they also have
insisted that the IESG has the unilateral right to do).
In principle, the IAB could appoint a new ISE to take over in
January who would adopt a policy of abusiveness. But I think I
can speak for the ACEF membership and the IAB if I say that we
don't intend to do that... and that the IAB would expect the RSE
to move fairly quickly, with the IAB's backing, to correct the
attitudes involved if it occurred anyway.
So trying to make IESG notes mandatory on documents originating
in another stream for the reasons you cite above is solving a
problem we've never had at the risk of making a problem worse
that we've had several times. That strikes me as bad
engineering at best.
And insisting that the RFC Editor invoke a formal appeals
procedure in case of disagreement with the IESG about an
Independent Submission would, as Olaf points out, largely undo
the efforts of the last few years to clearly separate the
different streams. It would be as sensible to say that IESG
notes should be sufficiently exceptional that the IESG would
need to consult the IAB and get permission before sending any
such note-request to the ISE. I suspect that such a provision
would not make either the IESG or the IAB very happy.
However, if your concern is really to make sure that there is a
timely appeal path, I have a suggestion that might be acceptable
to everyone without causing unfortunate side-effects. We simply
require that, if the ISE receives input from the IESG requesting
specific changes to a document ("specific changes" including,
but not limited to, so-called "IESG Notes") and the ISE and
authors decide to not incorporate those proposed changes, the
ISE is required to explain to the IESG, in writing, why not and
allow a reasonable period of time for the IESG to respond. If
it felt it were necessary, the IESG could then open a further
discussion, ask the RSE to mediate, or launch a formal request
for IAB review. Consistent with other provisions in RFC 4846,
either the IESG or the ISE could, at their discretion, make the
correspondence (the request and response) public.
The one restriction I'd impose on this is that "reasonable time"
not be more than a few weeks... again, there has been abuse in
that area in the past and re-enabling such abuse would be, well,
dumb. If the ISE notifies the IESG and the IESG doesn't
respond, then the ISE can go ahead and publish without further
delay.
Does that work for you? And, if not and you still think you
need mandatory notes, why?
best,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|