RJ Atkinson wrote:
The "IETF Consensus" matters,
I believe it should, but I currently completely fail to see
that it did matter to the IESG.
and I believe the IESG did fully and properly consider that matter
in the case that appears to have driven your note.
I would be curious about the IETF Last Call writeup from the responsible
Area Director about the issue that were raised during IETF Last Call
and their resolution, rfc-4858 Section 3.2 (2.i) => (2.b)-(2.h)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4858#page-10
I don't see that IETF LC Writeup in the Datatracker
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/writeup/
And I don't see the significant objection specifically on the
procedural issue that moving to historic is an abuse of the
IETF process in the comments of other ADs here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/ballot/
So I agree to Pauls original request for clarification:
Has the IESG given itself entirely new procedures for protocol
actions, and when are those going to be published (maybe using
the same bypass of the traditional IETF consensus
process that the above document seems to have used).
Paul's assertion that public postings to the IETF Discussion
list are the only metric for "IETF Consensus" is NOT correct
-- and never has been in the past.
If you read rfc4858 section 3.2 above, there was supposed to be a collection,
determination and resolution process for issues raised in an IETF LC in
just the same fashion as for the WG LC, and an IETF writeup of
significant issues raised during IETF LC and their resolution
as a prerequisition for an IESG decision.
If the new IESG approach to faster publication of RFC is to
simply ignore issues raised during IETF LC and rely primarily
on WG Last Call, and to make this change to the IETF procedures
bypassing public discussion and IETF consensus, then it would
be helpful for the resource management of IETF participants
when determining where to spend their valuable time: on WG
discussions or IETF LCs.
"IETF Consensus" includes ALL of the inputs that the IESG
receives about a document or issue that is put to IETF
Last Call.
IETF Consensus precludes ignoring procedural issues and
in-scope technical issues. Otherwise it is IESG consensus
at best.
Why was there no serious consideration to downgrade 6to4 to
experimental instead of moving it to historic?
Are there any serious procedural issues against "experimental"?
The Last Call announcement specifically says,
for example, that comments may be sent privately to the
IESG.
Consensus inputs are NOT limited to posted public comments,
BUT ALSO include formal liaisons, communications with various
WG Chairs (not limited to the sponsoring WG), private email
to the IESG, private email to an AD, and more.
The irritation is about consensus-precluding input that has been
openly discussed in a quite elaborate fashion and a complete
lack of writeup and resolution of the IETF LC issues on the part
of the responsible AD.
...which bears resemblance with what this words of rfc2418
specifically cautions against:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418#section-2.3
Proposed working groups often comprise technically competent
participants who are not familiar with the history of Internet
architecture or IETF processes. This can, unfortunately, lead to
good working group consensus about a bad design.
The job of the IESG is _not_ to defend a WGs interests against the interests
of the IETF at large, but the other way round, to ensure that the
interests of the IETF at large are sufficiently addressed by the output
of the WG (or the author of an independent submission) before a document
is published as RFC.
Note also that this is THE SAME as how WG Chairs are supposed
to operate. WG Chairs are supposed to consider ALL inputs,
NOT ONLY public postings to the WG list, BUT ALSO private
inputs from WG participants and other applicable folks,
and whatever other inputs arrive after a WG Last Call is
announced.
Yes, but in an open standardizations body, the WG Chairs need to
document "openly" whatever input (content, not necessary contributor)
that they based their decision on.
A WG Chair or AD writing "I've received important input from important
lobbies, but I am unwilling or unable to disclose any content,
so I declare consensus to be that certain way." would not be appropriate
for the original open standardization process of the IETF.
Neither the absence of a write-up or deliberate ignorance of
raised procedural and in-scope technical issues. Also contentious
matters of taste should be documented in the write-up.
-Martin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf