As you may recall, my conclusion of the discussion was that while
opinions were split, a dispute resolution model emerged as a potential
compromise. A week ago I promised that we would come up with a specific
proposal. Russ, Olaf, Harald and myself have now worked on this. In the
process we have realized that the devil is in the details, but we do
have a proposal that we believe addresses the various interests in an
acceptable manner. The full updated draft is at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-09 but the
important part is copied here for your convenience:
Experience has shown that the IESG and the RFC Editor have worked
well together regarding publication recommendations and IESG notes.
Where questions have arisen, they have been quickly resolved when all
parties become aware of the concerns. However, should a dispute ever
arise, a third party can assist with resolution. Therefore, this
dispute procedure has an informal dialogue phase followed by a formal
arbitration phase if the matter remains unresolved.
If the IRSG or the RFC Editor has concerns with the content of a
particular IESG note, then they should contact the IESG with a clear
and concise description of the concern. Alternate content may be
suggested. Informal dialogue is desired. At the end of the
dialogue, the IESG can reaffirm the original IESG note, provide an
alternate IESG note, or withdraw the note altogether.
The dialogue should not take more than six weeks. This period of
time allows the IESG to conduct an IETF Last Call to determine
community consensus if desired.
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. The IAB review will occur according to
procedures of the IAB's own choosing. The IAB can direct the
inclusion of the IESG note or withdraw the note altogether. Unlike
the IAB reviews specified in RFC 4846 [I3], in this situation, the
IAB decision is binding, not advisory.
The rationale for choosing this model is first of all the fact that
normal discussion should be given an opportunity, and only if that fails
should the dispute resolution be invoked. We have chosen a model where a
third party, the IAB, helps resolve the conflict. We believe the use of
a third party is a necessary part of the compromise. We also believe
that this model allows the independence of the RFC Editor to be retained.
An alternative that we considered during discussion was a two-party
model where the RFC Editor still made the final determination about the
requested note, but was required to ask for an IAB opinion before
ignoring the request. We are not sure if this model would work as a
compromise, because the two party model may not satisfy those who felt
that the RFC Editor should not be able to decide on this on its own.
However, the alternative does raise the bar for ignoring a request for
an IESG note. An advantage of the alternative model is that it can be
described purely as an application of the rules in RFC 4846. If we were
to choose this model, the last paragraph would read as follows:
If dialogue fails to resolve IRSG or RFC Editor concerns with the
content of a particular IESG note, then they are required to acquire
an opinion from the IAB. The IAB can direct the inclusion of the
IESG note or withdraw the note altogether. As specified in RFC 4846,
IAB's opinion will be advisory.
In any case, the decision on what to do rests again with the community.
We are asking the IETF community, the RFC Interest list, and the IAB to
think about our proposal and provide feedback and/or alternative
suggestions. I will wait for this feedback from the IETF until October
1st. Given that this matter concerns the boundary between the IETF and
RFC Editor operation, I will also ask the IAB to make a decision on
whether they are comfortable with the model going forward.
Jari Arkko
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf