Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, 23 June, 2008 13:08 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Russ Housley wrote:
>> This is an individual submission, not a WG document.  So,
>> there is no  charter that lists the appropriate mail list for
>> such a discussion.  

>...
> What we have here, now, is an example of why that should be a
> requirement: An I-D is for the purpose of discussion. We need
> to facilitate it's happening.
> 
> For rfc2821bis, there was, in fact, an established discussion
> venue, and it long-standing and quite well known to the email
> community, namely [e-mail].
> 
> It could only have helped for that venue to have been known to
> others, particularly if folks wanted to pursue a "community"
> discussion about a concern with the draft.
> 
> And especially since rfc2821bis development was, in fact,
> pursued with exactly the same rough consensus process a
> formally-chartered chartered working group.
> 
> But your last sentence probably highlights a basic structural
> disconnect -- for want of a better term -- that we ought to
> think about fixing:  when an individual submission is actually
> the result of a group process, the group ought to be
> identified and direct dialogue with the group ought to take
> place, not depending upon mediation by an author or
> proto-shepherd.

Of course, draft-klensin-rfc2821bis does identify the discussion
list (which is also listed on the "Non-WG Mailing List" page).
So a requirement that an I-D identify the group and discussion
venue would have been met.   The complaint here is apparently
only that there wasn't a formal WG charter that listed the
mailing list. 

I trust that is not the predecessor to either an IESG
requirement that all standards-track work, including revisions
to existing documents to raise them in maturity level, come
through working groups or to a position that DISCUSS actions are
subject to different, and more relaxed, criteria for non-WG
documents, even ones that have been extensively vetted in the
community, than for WG output.

    john





_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf