Hi Jari,
Here's the problem I see with draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-09.
Suggesting a dialogue when there is disagreement is fine.
Allowing the IESG to consult the IETF as a whole is fine. But
then the final part of the dispute resolution procedure attempts
to undercut the editorial independence of the IRSG or of
the Independent Series Editor (which really should replace the
"RFC Editor" throughout the draft):
If dialogue fails to resolve IRSG or RFC Editor concerns with the
content of a particular IESG note, then they can take the matter to
the IAB for a final ruling.
No. The IRSG or the ISE have editorial control. If they inform the
IESG that they will not include the IESG note, then it must be for
the IESG to appeal to the IAB. It's the IESG which is disagreeing with
the editorial decision.
Also, why is the appeal path to the ISOC Board, within the narrow
terms of RFC2026 section 6.5.3 "Questions of Applicable Procedure"
not mentioned? That path should always be open, I think.
That said, thanks for trying to resolve this conundrum.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf