Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, May 25, 2019 13:04 +0100 Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> If I am not mistaken, an IAB shepherd can provide a review of
>> architectural consistency and integrity.  Does the short
>> draft [1] require that type of review?
> 
> Are you asking the IAB to collectively answer that question?
> 
> IIUC the "IAB shepherd" thing happens when the IESG ask the
> IAB for someone to shepherd a BoF proposal and they've not
> asked us in this case that I recall. I don't think it'd be
> a good plan if the IAB decided to try muscle in to "shepherd"
> things that might or might not turn into a BoF without being
> asked by the IESG.

FWIW, my perspective as a sometime IAB member is that there are
three separate issues in this.  One is that the IAB should not
feel prohibited from speaking up on any topic that is directly
involved with the architecture of the Internet.  That would not
imply stepping in on a BOF or BOF proposal, but might involve a
proactive review or statement on its subject matter.  

Second, as far as BOF proposals are concerned, the IAB should be
responsive to IESG requests that fall within its competence.
So, I would hope, would any other IETF participant or cluster of
IETF participants: the IESG (or an individual AD) could ask an
area directorate or advisory group, a WG, those who read the
mailing list of a former WG, some other mailing list, or
selected individuals for an opinion on just about anything
within a broad interpretation of the IESG's scope.  I would
expect that, in any of those cases, the response would be one of
"yes", "not in my/our area of competence", or, for whatever
reason, "no".  Nothing requires the IESG to ask.  It would be,
IMO, quite weird for the IESG to ask for an opinion about a BOF
proposal it hasn't received yet (I am not aware or such a
proposal for a BOF associated with draft-moonesamy-recall-rev)
and whose contents were therefore just a matter of speculation.
The various agreements and statements the IESG and IAB have made
to facilitate those questions and help the community predict
what is likely to happen are fine but the above is, I think, the
bottom line.

> And FWIW, in this case, even if asked by the IESG, my starting
> position would be "no, this isn't something suited for an
> IAB shepherd as it's an IETF process related proposal" but
> others may have other opinions and I don't feel strongly about
> it so I could well be convinced otherwise if the IAB were
> asked by the IESG.

And my third point is in agreement with the above.    The IAB's
scope, as described in its name, RFC 2850 and its predecessors,
and a lot of oral tradition involves Internet architecture and
technology.  Except as part of the appeal process and its
oversight role for the RFC Editor, the IRTF, and, pre-Kobe, the
IETF and other task forces, the IAB shouldn't have any
particular role --and is not appointed to have any particular
competence in-- IETF process matters.  As a member of the
community, I would assume that the IAB digging into IETF
procedural matters would be a clue that it had too much spare
time on its collective hands, a topic that the community and the
nomcom would presumably want to address.  

I think we all need to give the IESG (and IAB) considerable
flexibility to use their discretion and Do the Right Thing on
topics like this, but it is not at all clear to me that this
discussion about BOFs, BOF shepherds, and advice is productive,
especially in the absence of one or more relevant BOF proposals.

best,
   john