Re: Last Call: <draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt> (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC

"Bradner, Scott" <sob@harvard.edu> Fri, 08 June 2012 01:13 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@harvard.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6E211E8099 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DKZldBcxO79H for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ackroyd.harvard.edu (ackroyd.harvard.edu [128.103.208.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6B611E8095 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exchange.university.harvard.edu (entwedge0000001.university.harvard.edu [10.35.2.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ackroyd.harvard.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F4B1E8B72; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:13:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ENTWHUBT0000003.university.harvard.edu (192.168.36.24) by ENTWEDGE0000001.university.harvard.edu (10.35.2.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:12:49 -0400
Received: from ENTWEXMB0000008.university.harvard.edu ([169.254.1.61]) by entwhubt0000003.university.harvard.edu ([192.168.36.24]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:12:44 -0400
From: "Bradner, Scott" <sob@harvard.edu>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt> (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt> (The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: AQHNRRPjzeDlNmma+0yP4HiwzJMosQ==
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 01:13:18 +0000
Message-ID: <52CB44AB-006B-407F-AA44-976271B3E27E@harvard.edu>
References: <20120530225655.19475.74871.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FC70E09.30002@cisco.com> <91BA408B-60F6-4451-910A-7D5C33F48038@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <91BA408B-60F6-4451-910A-7D5C33F48038@vpnc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [136.248.127.162]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <3853E324EEAD2A45A946B68CFB2D9B61@Exchange.university.harvard.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 01:13:21 -0000

On Jun 7, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> On May 30, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
>> 	• It's probably worth adding a word or two about the fact that the ISOC Board is the final appellate avenue in the standardization process.  In this way it may also make sense to move Section 3.2.1 further back behind the IAB.
> 
> I have heard that as well, but cannot find it in RFC 2026 or any of the RFCs that update 2026 (3667 3668 3932 3978 3979 5378 5657 5742 6410). It should only be in the Tao if we can point to where the rule comes from.


see RFC 2026 section 6.5.3

6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure

   Further recourse is available only in cases in which the procedures
   themselves (i.e., the procedures described in this document) are
   claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the protection of the
   rights of all parties in a fair and open Internet Standards Process.
   Claims on this basis may be made to the Internet Society Board of
   Trustees.  The President of the Internet Society shall acknowledge
   such an appeal within two weeks, and shall at the time of
   acknowledgment advise the petitioner of the expected duration of the
   Trustees' review of the appeal.  The Trustees shall review the
   situation in a manner of its own choosing and report to the IETF on
   the outcome of its review.

   The Trustees' decision upon completion of their review shall be final
   with respect to all aspects of the dispute.

note that the appeal to the ISOC BopT is only if the claim is that the rules are broken 
not the application of the rules

there has never been such an appeal

Scott