Keith,
Yes, to what you are saying, but I was pointing out that the text we're
discussing isn't intended to apply to moving what a working group has consensus
for onto the standards track, it's intended to apply to what the *IETF* already
has consensus for, that's already on the standards track, further along the
standards track.
I think there's a higher bar, especially when a document is advancing
unchanged, because I don't think there's any meaningful distinction between a
widely deployed PS that could be improved, and advancing it to be a widely
deployed IS that could be improved. I don't see the value-add from DISCUSSing
the advancement, because the same document is sitting there as a proposed
standard, and widely deployed.
If ADs look at a document proposed for advancement and see real and meaningful
opportunities to improve the specification, I think it makes just as much sense
to advance the document, as is, and start looking for people who will produce
an improved version, as to slow down the document for DISCUSSion in the hope
you end up with an improved document, that can then advance. Finding those
people, and chartering that work, falls well within the "S" in IESG, AFAICT.
Thanks,
Spencer
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Moore
To: Spencer Dawkins
Cc: Jari Arkko ; IETF Discussion
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards
track
thanks Spencer for pointing this part out.
On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
IESG reviews should be considered as a review of "last resort". Most
documents reviewed by the IESG are produced and reviewed in the
context of IETF working groups. In those cases, the IESG cannot
overrule working group consensus without good reason; informed
community consensus should prevail.
The idea that WG consensus should prevail is simply incorrect. It biases
IESG in an inappropriate way.
There are a number of very good reasons for overriding WG consensus, e.g.
- there is no evidence of broad community consensus or a clear lack of broad
community consensus
- the document does not meet the criteria specified in 2026 (or other
document when applicable)
- the document is ambiguous in such a way that it is likely to degrade
interoperability
The WG DOES NOT represent the entire community. Far too often, WGs are
deliberately chartered in such a way as to marginalize parts of the community
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf