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 5:44 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 5:18 PM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:56 PM Rob Sayre <[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").
>

All of these document classes apply only to the IETF stream.


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.

-Ekr