IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Sat, 25 January 2020 02:08 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D3C1200F3; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 18:08:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yj0jr6bHVDXQ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 18:08:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd44.google.com (mail-io1-xd44.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2A4A1200D8; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 18:08:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd44.google.com with SMTP id i11so3947151ioi.12; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 18:08:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IWScsMEtnSd9KwkVto7VCNNs6CcSgTyGfPnYczLajKs=; b=DbhE13wbC/M8AUt9n0EEDRXoIdjcrZOZa2CGiSD7hD6/iYsIXj+wBPbl8Hd84zuxua pO5j9voLhv+DSUZ2VmAAhVZtpCUu6fpAnsmiXgRfl5bwmDrR8dIbW2fMSb4iR5NzIJtn mY8aNFfG0DZthB0kXOkuUSpcMYePS8nu6aY4Af8Tgnlhm1NXGmJV/n7rtJWmPW04n2Hu 9iiyy7PExmqSKMtF08E2xnfetS9CTwT7ysE4AYbGmaQOPr4Fg7m74AHc4T75+1LpQldU rfSZxxUcJQWITfqfcWLqdhtJQtVjkFv9x0T+NeMUwJc101X7HL7sSVSCCqpERyGBKUg2 Dgqg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IWScsMEtnSd9KwkVto7VCNNs6CcSgTyGfPnYczLajKs=; b=LGp0nsGNvZZDbgq45nqXLdc2tjIomSFWQag4Sln+tk/jPoiT/2UlIi3M7M5/TuDx1a l5Sfez9KwR/P8P/CjGify1JHegiGELGcIdIbaCBeWcp4MiYODD0P3JKQKUsriD5uFXKM TM/99u+xINdEWYsmdYPkGOELV3A2YjNt4xDCsCA2zNAS8t8w5OSW20tNtGwgFA6VdZJG Q8hwd9pTxuurY57p/jY4EorUsiDQgRrZEX1T1R33VVoMjcdV7VmX1gw9eiPT8/P4VjEm K86FcQ1LSRS6N2pCzFUEmoENpmV20qbs6IYN353hDTgATDfEN7xYcSAbU6A8vP0SY9yy eAVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV8U2uS4yc1toMdOsEM+BmSon42Xb5wych7fpsZf2COudH9Enbd nVk9YWsF8ksRXBDAkWrftw643mpprby6cFrTCLc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyamkmV+iaGp81UNegSydeXleZn7suhdhLidSlMKvXOb/b35edirvruif8MtFcm/02TIr0vEj0NtD9CpqCR+d4=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:ec08:: with SMTP id c8mr4570464ioh.257.1579918100978; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 18:08:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAChr6Sy5-ejdjw5zgZgiF1hSyuiAErmas-dbWFmx1b+1vftT1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOMVYpEYaEUzYsa0ApDfGtA6oD5P67A40=HQVBN+yTuKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sz7vihWaoeG8H11JzQ5YqrbYLPLneuY3PD4syMYEaKQ4w@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMeuPQnUtOvxxscN2Si+s5ntx11RE-fRQararL+ePmDXA@mail.gmail.com> <34c2fd47-40b4-2126-98b1-b530b5215808@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <34c2fd47-40b4-2126-98b1-b530b5215808@gmail.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 18:08:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CAChr6Sz6TF2H1xnkWZKC+7OaMONfxuP-51zCkkPgCdR0iBrRDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, last-call@ietf.org, draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002ee0c0059ced5939"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/95qmbTUXaB-hUkSWKMexVztMZBE>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> (IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus) to Best Current Practice
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 02:08:24 -0000

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 6:03 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25-Jan-20 14:48, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> ...
> >>     However, there are a bunch of ways for the IESG to block
> publication of IRTF or Independent Stream documents given in RFC 5742.
> >
> >
> > This seems off topic for this document, which, as noted above, only
> refers to the IETF stream.
>
> Also it's inaccurate. The IESG has no blocking power. The most the IESG
> can do is request the Independent Stream Editor not to publish a draft, or
> to request them to insert a specific IESG note, but the ISE has the final
> say. Similarly for IRTF drafts, where authority lies with the IRSG.
>

Has the IESG ever been crossed in this way? I've seen some RFCs with IESG
disapproval notes, but nothing more.

thanks,
Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email