On 2009-09-21 20:56, Jari Arkko wrote:
Brian,
I think my comment still applies - it should be the IESG that appeals
against the Editor's final decision, not the other way round.
Ok. I have no problem placing the burden on initiating the formal
dispute resolution from the IESG side instead. For instance, if the
current text says
"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."
to
"If dialogue fails to resolve IRSG or RFC Editor concerns with the
content of a particular IESG note, the IESG can take the matter to the
IAB for a final ruling."
Would this help resolve your concerns?
Yes, thanks. It may seem like a tiny point, but I think it's an issue
of principle.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf