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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 6:06 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>

You should feel free to propose this via the GENDISPATCH process, but
that's not what this document is about. It has nothing to do with the ISE.

-Ekr


> 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/
>> >
>>
>