Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 31, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 2009-09-01 05:56, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission
>>> stream.
>>>
>>> We ask the IESG to review these documents, and that review is  
>>> technical.
>>>
>>> I don't think it is appropriate for an editor to make a judgment of
>>> whether
>>> a technical note is, or is not appropriate to be included in a
>>> document.  I
>>> think the presumption should be that it is appropriate, and the
>>> authors have
>>> a way to object.  While I understand the role of the ISE is somewhat
>>> different from the RFC Editor, I understand the role to be primarily
>>> editorial and we are not choosing the ISE with regard to their  
>>> ability to
>>> make judgments like whether the IESG note is appropriate or not.
>>>
>>> I think it would be okay to have the note go through an IETF  
>>> consensus
>>> call.
>>>
>>
>> +1 , including the "IETF consensus call" part.
>
> I don't understand how IETF consensus is relevant to a non-IETF  
> document.

Can't the IETF can have a consensus that a non-IETF document relates  
to other IETF work in some way?

>
> In fact the answer to Jari's question appears to be a matter of logic,
> not of opinion. The IESG, which acts for the IETF, logically cannot
> determine anything about the contents of a non-IETF document. So the
> inclusion of an IESG note can only be a request.

How would you expect the RFC editor to evaluate such a request? Under  
what circumstances would it be reasonable to refuse to include it?

>
>     Brian