Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> (IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus) to Best Current Practice

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 5:56 PM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:

> This document makes no change to the interaction of the IESG with other
> streams.  It is strictly about the IETF stream.  As such, the rest of
> this is out of scope for the document.
>
> As a matter of documented procedure, the IESG can request various things
> of the IRTF stream or the Independent Stream, but can not block
> publication.  (For example, they can request non-publication of
> Independent Stream documents, but the final decision rests with the
> ISE.)  This is either a feature or a bug, depending upon a lot of other
> views one has.


Sure, I just think there's an angle here that's not being considered. I
agree with the goal of the document.

Maybe also give the IESG a SHOULD requirement to recommend one of the
RFC 5742 nastygrams detailed in section 3 of that
document, should publication be requested on another stream.

thanks,
Rob




>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 1/24/2020 8:44 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 5:18 PM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:56 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail..com
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >         Hi,
> >
> >         Without any judgement, I wondered how this document relates to
> >         the IESG's discuss criteria.[0]
> >
> >         In particular, this part: "Does this document represent an end
> >         run around the IETF's working groups or its procedures?"
> >
> >         How does this document relate to this IESG procedure?
> >
> >
> >     It would preclude the IESG from publishing non-consensus documents,
> >     which seems like a chance in procedure.
> >
> >
> > OK, I see. I support this change. They can always allow it on the other
> > streams, as detailed below.
> >
> >         Would publishing a dissenting document on the independent stream
> >         constitute such an "end run"?
> >
> >
> >     I don't see how that relates to this document given that independent
> >     stream documents are by definition not in the IETF stream and
> >     therefore are not subject to IESG discusses. See
> >     https://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?doc=5742 for more on this.
> >
> >
> > Maybe I'm confused about this, or shouldn't have used the term "discuss
> > criteria" (though [0] contained the term, as well as the section on
> > "Document Classes Reviewed by the IESG"). However, there are a bunch of
> > ways for the IESG to block publication of IRTF or Independent Stream
> > documents given in RFC 5742.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Rob
> >
> > [0] https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/iesg-discuss-criteria/
> >
>