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 Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 10:45 AM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Apologies for the pedanticism, but there are some frequently confused
> items in here (and the terminology of
> https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/iesg-discuss-criteria/ has
> since evolved).
>

Perhaps we need an ITAB (IESG Terminology Architecture Board). :)


>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 08:25:32PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > 2) Document Actions (WG)
> > 3) Document Actions (Individual)
> ...
> >
> > That leaves #2 or #3. If the draft is concerned about #3, I think it
> > should state what the IESG is to do if the draft reappears as individual
> > submission.
>
> I assume you mean Independent Submission here (i.e., via ISE).
>

Yes.

> If the document is about #2, that would be good to state as well.
>
> In light of the above, it seems clear that this draft is proposing changes
> to (2) and (3).
>

OK. The questions in my original message are still unanswered. Currently,
dissenting or non-consensus Informational or Experimental documents can be
published through any of the channels, with the rationale that they don't
require consensus anyway. While I understand (and have understood this
entire time...) that this document only intends to change the IETF stream
process, my question is whether it would also add to the set of documents
that are considered an "end run".

thanks,
Rob