Re: Appeal's purposes (was appeals, post-appeal, etc.)

At 16:41 22/07/2006, John C Klensin wrote:
>We have appeals to the IESG about IESG
>actions precisely because the function of such an appeal is to
>say "you may not have understood the issues correctly, please
>take another look, considering these issues in particular"

Dear John,
you miss an important role of the appeal IMHO. The possibility to get 
a documented position from the IETF on a point a WG process refused 
to address. To protest that a point has not been addressed is unfair 
if it has not been appealed - even if one known the answer. Users 
will not know.

As far as I am concerned the most important contributions in the case 
of RFC 3066 Bis were made by the IESG. To permit interoperability the 
need was not to change the document but to get clear IETF positions. 
I obtained many clarifications in the document itself, against my 
propositions. The appealed points and their responses (for RFC 3066 
Bis and the Draft in filtering) were/are necessary to the 
http://bcp47.com which will document how to use the BCP from the 
Multilingual Internet.

This should result in an I-D. I documented this a long ago. I do not 
consider this as obstruction, but as normal, fair, and positive 
Internet standard process application. This is what is DoSed: I fully 
understand that this may irritate some who preferred a certain 
confusion degree. However, if a BCP purposely does not document all 
the existing practices the market may chose from, this must be 
seriously and authoritatively documented. This authority can only 
come from the IESG and of the IAB.

jfc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf