I'd like to draw some conclusions about the discussion that we had on
this topic. I also believe we have a way forward.
My read of discussion is that the community is split on the mandatory
vs. optional IESG note question. There was a good number of people on
both sides. Both sides had rational arguments, and it seemed hard to
dismiss either point of view.
However, a compromise position emerged during the discussion. The
general idea is that an appeal-style safety mechanism allows a conflict
-- if one ever appears -- to be resolved in a reasonable manner. I
talked to the IESG about this, and we would like to propose something
along the lines that a number of people brought up in the discussion: if
the RFC Editor believes that an IESG note is inappropriate, they can
indicate so, and the IESG in turn can determine whether it wants to
appeal the editor's decision.
I believe this is a reasonable approach, it retains the independence of
the editor, it does not create any new processes that have to be
executed for every document, and should an inappropriate
note/inappropriate deletion of a note ever occur, it allows the
situation to be fixed.
However, there's obviously many details missing. I will work with Olaf
and Russ to come up with a more specific proposal*. Once we have that
there will be an opportunity to comment. We will also work with the IAB
to make sure the outcome is appropriate from their perspective. Stay tuned.
Jari
*) Of course, the proposal may use already existing processes, but I
would like to be very explicit in 3932bis about pointing to those
processes, to leave no room for unclarity.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf