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 6:35 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 6:21 PM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> A close reading of RFC 5742, something I suggest the authors undertake,
> would show this not to be the case.
>

Well, I've red 5742, and I don't see what you are getting it. I would
suggest you make your point explicitly.

-Ekr