Polk, William T. wrote:
I believe Sam's suggestion offers a good compromise position: if the IESG
and RFC Editor do not come to an agreement, we should last call the proposed
IESG Note and let the community determine whether (1) this is an exceptional
case meriting a note and (2) if the text accurately clarifies the
relationship.
On its face, this is certainly a reasonable path to follow. However it has
three practical problems.
One is effort and delay. Adding more layers of decision-making and negotiation
imposes non-trivial cost. The more barriers we place in the way of independent
submission, the less it will get used. Worse, that's a stated goal for some folk.
The second is that it has become nearly impossible to find anything that looks
like classic "rough consensus" on the IETF list. The diversity of
understanding, commitment and goals of participants on the IETF list has become
far too diverse. So as a mechanism for discerning how to resolve an impasse, it
isn't likely to be very helpful.
The third is that it creates a negative incentive for the RFC Editor to act as
an independent agency. When it presses a point and finds a wall of hassle to
deal with, this has a chilling effect on its likelihood of pressing. They come
to see such matters of principle as not worth the effort.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf