Commenting on/ reviewing Independent Submissions (was: Re: Enough DMARC whinging)

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

--On Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:36 -0700 Jim Fenton
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 5/1/14 7:53 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I recommend a careful reading of RFC 4846 before doing so,
>> but, with the understanding that there is no consensus process
>> involved and this list is definitely the wrong place to have,
>> or even copy, the discussion, if someone had well-thought-out
>> opinions as to whether that document should be published in
>> the Independent Stream and/or what completeness conditions
>> should be imposed on it, the ISE is typically willing to
>> accept unsolicited reviews.  Similarly, if someone felt like
>> generating a well-reasoned critique, posting it as an I-D,
>> and asking that the ISE consider publication, I assume such a
>> request would at least be considered.
> 
> I'd like to understand the relationship of RFC 4846, which is
> Informational, with RFC 5792/BCP 92 here. The latter gives
> IESG 5 options for review of independent submissions for
> conflicts with the IETF standards process, such as:
>...

Briefly, 4846 is Informational because there is no mechanism for
the IAB to publish documents in what is now called the IETF
Stream (and BCPs are published only in that stream).  The
document was published in what we now call the IAB Stream
because the RFC Editor function, including the Independent
[Submission] Stream, operate under IAB authority (and have since
before there was an IETF).  

The other important part of the relationship between 4846, 5792,
and the predecessors of the latter, is that the ISE is not
required to follow whatever advise the IESG provides.  I think
we would all hope and assume that the ISE would not reject such
advice lightly, but a very important part of the relationship is
the ability of the ISE to publish documents that are critical,
even strongly so, of IETF Standards Track specifications and
decisions.  For that level of independence to be viable, the
IESG cannot have veto power over publications of documents it
doesn't like, whether that veto power requires cleverness to fit
into one of those five (IESG-created) categories or not.

>...
> What is the appropriate forum to express opinions to the IESG
> to inform their decision?

While neither document requires the IESG to solicit such input,
I would assume that they would be open to whatever comments are
made to them at their usual address.  Some sitting AD might want
to provide more specific advice (or not).

>...
> I have sent my detailed review of the draft, hopefully meeting
> those criteria, to Nevil.

I hope he finds it useful.

best,
   john