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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Dear Mr Rescorla,
At 03:45 AM 20-05-2019, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>I'm not on any kind of I*, but when I was, the idea behind an IAB 
>shepherd was not that primarily that they provided a review but that 
>they helped the proponents of the work navigate the IETF process 
>(especially the BOF process) and get to a crisp problem statement, 
>etc. I never thought of it as a requirement, but rather something 
>that was intended to result in a more productive discussion.

Thank you for providing the above information.

The short draft was intended to be narrow in scope (re. crisp problem 
statement).  Some time back, I served as editor of a draft which was 
discussed at length on this mailing list.  My co-author also served 
as editor of other drafts.  He has much more experience than I do 
with respect to getting drafts through the IETF process.

As a comment about IETF process, it was pointed out to me that a 
Working Group Chair cannot author drafts within his/her working 
group.  That does not seem to be a problem for other Working Group 
Chairs; some of them have been authored drafts in their working 
groups.  That can create a perception that the rule, if there is one, 
is applied in different ways to different people.  I am okay if the 
IAB wishes to provide guidance on a problem statement about that as 
part of the revision to IETF eligibility procedures.

I read draft-rescorla-istar-recall-00.  One of the conclusions from 
it is that the recall system is so unwieldy that it is undeployable 
even in the most egregious cases.  I could not figure out the 
rationale for having an accountability mechanism which, by design, is 
not intended to work.

There is the following sentence at the end of Section 3 of the draft: 
"The Chair of the IETF may not be removed by expulsion".  That is an 
interesting proposal.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy