Sam, the document is in the IETF stream (NOT the IAB stream), and Jari
is the responsible AD. Jari will, of course, do the usual job of the
responsible AD and will be the one responsible for evaluating
consensus, with the oversight of the IESG as a whole.
I don't see this as being any different to any individual submission,
which is what this looks like from a procedural point of view.
Barry
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
Hi.
The message below sounds like it perports to be a judgment of consensus
and a summary of last call comments ffor a draft being published as IETF
stream as a standards action.
This document is authored by the IAB.
Mark Blanchet, the author of this message is an IAB member.
I have a huge process concern with this. I'd expect that the person
judging consensus for an IETF last call on a standards action would be a
member of the IESG, and especially not one of the authors of the draft,
which for an IAB document should include the entire IAB.
From time to time the IESG might delegate that role to a document
shepherd who is not a member of the IESG. I'd expect that the IESG
member would still ultimately judge consensus, but I can see a shepherd
writing up an initial message. I think such a delegation to an IAB
member for an IAB document is entirely inappropriate.
I'm very uncomfortable with the apparent process here and believe that
that to avoid doubt a member of the IESG needs to step in and make their
own independent assessment of the last call comments.
If my understanding is correct and we've already misstepped here, I
think delegation would be inappropriate in this instance.
--Sam