Hi,
We have obviously had a lengthy process around the update to RFC 3932.
Including some heated discussion and differing opinions. The document
specifies IESG procedures for checking RFC editor submissions for
conflicts with IETF work. We have already earlier resolved the issue of
whether the IESG notes are used for all documents (as they are today) or
if they are exceptional (the new model we want to follow).
The remaining difficulty was who to give the final authority to decide
about IESG notes. In the course of the discussions a thought emerged
that we could think about this in terms of arbitration via a third
party. The draft specifies the details of this process in Section 4,
which basically states that if for some reason the IESG and RFC Editor
have not come to a common understanding after rounds of discussion,
there is an opportunity for the IESG to ask the IAB to arbitrate the
matter. The IAB can then either direct a particular outcome or leave the
final decision to the RFC Editor.
I realize that it is hard to come up with any model that satisfies
everyone. For instance, there are members of the community who believe
any direction -- even from the IAB -- would reduce the independence of
the RFC Editor. However, it is my belief that the above represents a
compromise that helps people on different sides of the argument accept
the end result. I know this does not satisfy everyone, but I believe we
have rough consensus to move forward. Given that RFC 3932bis is in the
interface between the IETF and RFC Editor functions, I also wanted to
ensure that the IAB finds the result acceptable. During this process I
have been struggling to find a model that would work for everyone both
in the IESG and IAB. Russ and I spent some time in Hiroshima to talk
about this with them, and we now have an OK from this perspective.
Perhaps a bit grudgingly acceptance in some cases.
My conclusion is that this is the closest that we can come to an
agreement over this. 3932bis represents a significant improvement over
the current situation. My sense of the opinion of the common IETF
participant is that we should get it over with and stop wasting our time
on boilerplates and process :-) As a result, I have decided clear the
final Discuss that was blocking the approval of the document.
The final document is available at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis. I hope that we
will soon see new RFCs come out with the new headers, and most
independent submission RFCs without IESG notes. The IESG has already
processed a number of documents where our recommendation was to not have
any note.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf