ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: I-D Action: draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-00.txt

2012-06-11 10:43:45
Paul and Brian:

Oh, one thing I now realise is that the draft doesn't state that
the editor (in deciding what changes to adopt) and the IESG
(in approving an update) will of course do so by a normal IETF
consensus process (presumably ad hoc last calls) and subject
to appeal like anything else. This is so obvious in the IETF
context that I didn't even notice that it wasn't stated.

It is not what was intended.

- There was no mention to me of "ad hoc last calls", so I did not include 
them in the draft. 

Well, that was presumably an oversight. The IETF always works by
a consensus process, afaik.

The IESG thinking on this is in line with Brian's thinking.  In the past, the 
Tao has been published as an informational RFC.  The approval process included 
community comment and IESG evaluation.  A parallel approval process ought to be 
used here.

Let's use of a well-known URL for the current approved Tao and a well-known URL 
for the draft of the Tao that is under consideration.  This will facilitate 
review of updates.

- Is there an appeals process for the content of the various web pages 
created by the IESG?

Yes. For many years there has been a presumption that the appeals
process in section 6.5 of RFC 2026 can be applied to *any* IESG action.
That being so, I suppose it isn't vital to write it down in every
document, but it makes things clearer.

Indeed.  Any decision by the IESG is subject to the existing appeals process.

Russ