Re: [IAB] Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice

[Marc Blanchet <[e-mail]>]

> Le 2015-02-17 à 18:07, Sam Hartman <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
> Hi.
> 
> 
> The message below sounds like it perports to be a judgment of consensus

I’m sorry. I probably need to revise the wording I used in the summary. I guess you are probably referring to the first item (A) in my summary.  Obviously, I did not want to claim any concensus, it is the AD and IESG to declare it.  And this is what is planned (IESG/AD to judge concensus).

Really sorry, I should have been careful about how I wrote it.  

Marc.

> and a summary of last call comments ffor a draft being published as IETF
> stream as a standards action.
> This document is authored by the IAB.
> 
> Mark Blanchet, the author of this message is an IAB member.
> 
> I have a huge process concern with this.  I'd expect that the person
> judging consensus for an IETF last call on a standards action would be a
> member of the IESG, and especially not one of the authors of the draft,
> which for an IAB document should include the entire IAB.
> 
>> From time to time the IESG might delegate that role to a document
> shepherd who is not a member of the IESG.  I'd expect that the IESG
> member would still ultimately judge consensus, but I can see a shepherd
> writing up an initial message.  I think such a delegation to an IAB
> member for an IAB document is entirely inappropriate.
> 
> I'm very uncomfortable with the apparent process here and believe that
> that to avoid doubt a member of the IESG needs to step in and make their
> own independent assessment of the last call comments.
> If my understanding is correct and we've already misstepped here, I
> think delegation would be inappropriate in this instance.
> 
> --Sam