Response to Part 1 of the appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-08-17

IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Tue, 22 August 2006 16:12 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFYrM-0001Y8-QK; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:12:12 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFYrK-0001Us-0o; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:12:10 -0400
Received: from ns0.neustar.com ([156.154.16.158]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFYl4-0002Qe-EC; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:05:43 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (stiedprweb1.va.neustar.com [10.91.34.42]) by ns0.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A0A32888; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:05:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mirror by ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GFYl4-0006Sr-AU; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:05:42 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: JFC Morfin <jefsey@online.fr>
From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <E1GFYl4-0006Sr-AU@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:05:42 -0400
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf-announce@ietf.org
Subject: Response to Part 1 of the appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-08-17
X-BeenThere: ietf-announce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org
List-Id: ietf-announce.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>, <mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-announce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>, <mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org

Response to Part 1 of the appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-08-17

This is the IESG response to Part 1 of the appeal by JFC Morfin
sent on 2006-08-17 and posted at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/jefsey-appeal-to-iesg-08-17-2006.pdf

This was considered during the IESG teleconference
on the same date. Part 1 of the appeal is summarized as:

"Appeal against the decision to consider a request to the RFC Editor
to expedite the publication of draft-ietf-ltru-registry,
draft-ietf-ltru-matching and draft-ietf-ltru-initial"

followed by various arguments.

As discussed in the July 10 response to the appeal from Dean Anderson
against draft-ietf-grow-anycast, the appeals process is designed to
handle disputes that cannot be handled through other means. The IESG
cannot come up with a situation where it would be appropriate to
appeal the consideration of some action before a decision is made;
this is certainly not such a case. Instead, participants should
provide input to that consideration. We interpret this appeal in that
light: we interpret part 1 of the appeal as arguments why the IESG
should choose to delay a decision to expedite this BCP.

The IESG makes such requests regularly when another SDO's publication
schedule requires the ability to cite a forthcoming RFC normatively.
There is nothing exceptional or discriminatory about doing so in the
case of Unicode. It would not be sufficient for Unicode to refer
generically to BCP 47; the reference needs to be to specific text
and hence to the RFCs.

We note that RFC 2026 does not require appeals to have suspensive effect.
If an appeal against the approval of a published RFC were to succeed,
that RFC could be reclassified as Historic.

We find no merit in the arguments in Part 1 of the appeal, which is
dismissed.

[The response to Part 2 of the appeal will be published later.]

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce