IESG Response to Patrick Masotta on the Appeal re draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt

The IESG <> Mon, 27 January 2014 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 680121A0236 for <>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:39:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yuLMrpOOkLQe; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:39:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D7B1A0146; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:39:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: The IESG <>
Subject: IESG Response to Patrick Masotta on the Appeal re draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:39:32 -0800
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 15:39:35 -0000

Patrick Masotta has appealed the IESG's failure to publish the
document draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt, through a combination
of a "Do Not Publish" recommendation to the Independent Stream Editor
during its RFC 5742 review of the draft, and not bringing the document to
Last Call during AD-sponsorship of the document. The full appeal is
available here:


During the RFC 5742 review of draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt,
the IESG determined that the document extended an IETF protocol in a
way that requires IETF review. Martin Stiemerling (TSV AD) volunteered
to shepherd the document through the IETF process since the primary
concern raised against the document was its lack of congestion control
capabilities, and Mr Stiemerling and Mr Masotta began discussion on
those issues. After a few exchanges, the discussion broke down and
did not complete. The IESG believes Mr Masotta is appealing the "Do
Not Publish" decision and the failure to bring the document to Last
Call based on his belief that:

1) the Transport Area Directors had a conflict of interest due to
their private jobs

2) a lapse in the ethics of the TSV ADs led to an inadequate review
of his draft.

The IESG believes this appeal falls under section 6.5.2 of RFC 2026
since it relates to a process responsiblity of the IESG (RFC 5742
conflict review of Independent Stream documents).

In evaluating this appeal, the IESG reviewed all e-mail exchanges
between Mr Masotta and the TSV & APPs ADs to determine if any
indication of an ethical lapse occurred during the RFC 5742 review
process. Additionally, the IESG reviewed the corporate website for
Wesley Eddy's employer since Mr Masotta claimed that Mr Eddy's
employer is selling his services as an IESG member


The IESG's evaluation did not find any conflict of interest related to
this document, nor any actions on the part of the TSV ADs that the
IESG could consider indicative of such a conflict. The IESG did not
find any indication that the "Do Not Publish" decision it made for
this document was unduly or improperly influenced by the TSV
ADs. Additionally, while the MTI Systems website does indicate a
willingness to participate in the development of protocols in
standards bodies (particularly noting the IETF), including taking on
leadership roles, it does not imply any type of preferential
treatment for customers looking to work within the IETF, and the
IESG therefore did not find this statement to be problematic.

The IESG did not find any indication of unethical behavior by the
TSV ADs. There has been no indication that the involved ADs have
attempted to push forth a competing draft. In fact, Mr Stiemerling's
willingness to shepherd the draft through the IETF process indicates
an interest in helping Mr Masotta with the IETF publishing process.
The discussion appears to have broken down due to disagreement as to
the validity of the issues Mr Stiemerling raised, and the IESG does not
believe those issues have yet been adequately addressed in the discussion.

Given the above, the IESG finds that the proper process was followed,
there was no indication of a conflict of interest, and that the TSV
ADs acted ethically.

That said, the IESG notes that this appeal is not the only avenue
available to Mr Masotta: another AD, outside the TSV area, may be
willing to sponsor the draft, and the IESG encourages Mr Masotta to
make another attempt to resolve the open issues, move the document
through the IETF process, and get the document published.