IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Form of Appeals (Re: Complaint to IAB regarding non-transparency)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 10 October 2025 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CAD670F11D6 for <ietf@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 12:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q9WZ4NDCMzUV for <ietf@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 12:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com (mail-pf1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C99E870F11D0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 12:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-782bfd0a977so2196298b3a.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 12:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1760126369; x=1760731169; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9drJsG+CXYn8jtKKPGneH9Lb3kdRWg3PPuhy2PHasU8=; b=LTExIq5+bx8v0KMh+NHBso/EZx2mFE6Thk6pN9+eDCVq9ySYbtf1JmRJnF/BFCP6HR RWbpEKfqO5DGftvmWV8rT16pvjT6XHSzIKbTzaQFA02u0gbD2isZCA10+yxO5PeiMKUa L5k6LL44wyIzWpTosBD7C5Zpp69T15Nz4Ba1ylW03FvtRLIew+48TsXRxOElN8k88jhZ 8iFla4TFZNRApaRTZkpYOg5ZZBF03lvhf4YszicQnzX6myePUat5vpgACHhgKUkoWYV8 Iyz9KsoN/dZs7FGBA/PRcXNRZUoKqHsZysZvS/ILdyiyj0AzcpoFCUs7bbc5YFSugYV1 nsBQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1760126369; x=1760731169; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9drJsG+CXYn8jtKKPGneH9Lb3kdRWg3PPuhy2PHasU8=; b=kmEzSnt4w5SAjSIvTShaw6QFOw0DyHK3/S9tV7d0xEg8SSVVZCVXbZlV7811OkPx0N u7CHhUSsMn1CkmBIOy7MlGjMHotGX3kALK4ubrEmxfALP8wjDN3BPyuojlHPNeeQRRlX 5IR+Dv+OVCJGl7q9XwjQvh/fL0SjmeY7FhwnXbVXpsSCgMjSbV6CPRZKmj8hPIM6G0Da klnDlHqh8hnCVVWKhmiTvuI+S94ojoQkpwVZQGOxLT3KOItOCkl0EuA8Rc+vLsAun7fS kYjS80Dp8Nnsq9hKbALY/7TMIrevuZC+WAogsONNI7LzFxx55cI4C+aNAEose9CjiTw0 w8kw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywn7P3NRZq845GGYoSiVYbC8A0uPeZvtu+c2wy6T0BRy1j/KNSW 5nOD6eAGfj/h45tqc8lH9iTwutCfMyGDJVYL/qidAq74FQUshn5/ydMMVQufZyFO
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnct5/79rLC9AhuIvMa0HWfz3bmZAZdCgnzQVJktrtqMqVXV5gtcZm5dgmMMnvtZ p1mFP7DtGXCznU0O2XvofzsstvD97zz3uN6J9FVOg0T1cx+3FI9ZRXYixweI+t+gtNUPoraV7ni kCoULCHaMjPgNc2/RiSu2PLl8s+g+Wgn3uyPUiTzPO9l6SqpAA49lfC1UuqyL9jgpaw6za+DhJx LBrRsGwdCYOI8EePFiqjJy1YZ721nkSOyjxzSiqXyJROfemD4jJVCHo2mXCFz1jO/cZJouXyVw3 eUx09ft4oCVURXLIL+3+nWqrl+HLvmMr1dGW7mko6nt77LUaXRn8BKF2qOXZMSiYA+3djmQNIf0 qIFjqvNWVPXcizUAFzT8wRwQxrI7dyzKayP7pxPASlLrUp1Ncu2zoKdT7Scz5pvUYjpiEof2TgW t3U/9iMuvrrWWuLeqVocPygB1YHeR4LA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGZQ6QK1LEX1O0X7WRDTi1pEz54r0cE8H3PssCYLYsDeAKRyhsEyfsIyKXGI2t06EmE2RgWwg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:3d94:b0:2e8:6bf6:7d6c with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-32da80bb8eamr16884145637.2.1760126369044; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 12:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPV6:2404:4400:540a:800:8bdd:3b5f:46ae:fd4c? ([2404:4400:540a:800:8bdd:3b5f:46ae:fd4c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-33b61ac8d7fsm4046569a91.21.2025.10.10.12.59.27 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Oct 2025 12:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <ec921ab7-b64b-4176-9940-2cda279d61a3@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 08:59:25 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Form of Appeals (Re: Complaint to IAB regarding non-transparency)
Content-Language: en-US
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20251009095307.23959.qmail@cr.yp.to> <BE76F0AF-58D5-4C68-8A7D-05D28508D90D@nixmagic.com> <CACsn0cnjJOeqvJSqwY16W-0jTh4PoAu-pA13quH8e59Qi=xz_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0cnjJOeqvJSqwY16W-0jTh4PoAu-pA13quH8e59Qi=xz_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID-Hash: IEMWT3T7YDCQIPT5MWCQ4J7OWF4JWLQE
X-Message-ID-Hash: IEMWT3T7YDCQIPT5MWCQ4J7OWF4JWLQE
X-MailFrom: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ietf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF-Discussion. This is the most general IETF mailing list, intended for discussion of technical, procedural, operational, and other topics for which no dedicated mailing lists exist." <ietf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/m28cFvxOyMhbbFsUVM3FeEngQaQ>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-leave@ietf.org>

On 11-Oct-25 05:53, Watson Ladd wrote:

<snip>

> Of course if the ADs and IESG had actually wanted to address the substantive issues they could have: they've decided to kick this matter around for months inventing procedural steps out of whole cloth to avoid settling the question of what rough consensus to adopt a draft means.

I don't understand anything about the underlying issue here, but IMHO it is not the ADs' or the IESG's responsibility to settle that question. 'Adopt a draft' is not a formal step in the IETF standards process; it isn't defined in either BCP 9 or BCP 25.

'Adoption' is discussed in Informational RFC 7221 (and there is a 7221bis draft in the archive) but that's not a BCP. We (the IETF as a whole) could make adoption part of the formal process if we wanted to, but we haven't.

That doesn't take away the appeal path, of course. But it's hard to formally appeal against a non-existent step in the process. It's not like appealing against a WG Last Call decision.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

v2.40.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status