IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Summary of Discussion on Reforming IETF Quality Control Process

Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> Sat, 10 January 2004 05:52 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11145 for <mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:52:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfC2Q-0001c7-VE for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:51:59 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0A5pw5d006197 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:51:58 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfC2Q-0001bs-Pn for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:51:58 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11077 for <mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:51:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfC2O-0007EN-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:51:56 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfC0S-00079G-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:49:57 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfByY-000756-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:47:58 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfBya-0001X1-VV; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:48:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AfByZ-0001Wd-3R for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:47:59 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10991 for <mpowr@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:47:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfByW-00074b-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:47:56 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AfBwc-0006zz-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:45:58 -0500
Received: from measurement-factory.com ([206.168.0.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AfBuh-0006tJ-00; Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:44:00 -0500
Received: from measurement-factory.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0A5hvk3094168; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:43:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com)
Received: (from rousskov@localhost) by measurement-factory.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i0A5hvoK094167; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:43:57 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rousskov)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:43:57 -0700 (MST)
From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
To: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
cc: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>, MPowr <mpowr@ietf.org>, icar@ietf.org, solutions@alvestrand.no
In-Reply-To: <003701c3d737$5b361530$386015ac@dclkempt40>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.58.0401092229580.93125@measurement-factory.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040109203410.04552a28@ms101.mail1.com> <003701c3d737$5b361530$386015ac@dclkempt40>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: [mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Summary of Discussion on Reforming IETF Quality Control Process
Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr>, <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results <mpowr.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mpowr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr>, <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, James Kempf wrote:

> > What are the criteria for deciding whether a particular document
> > requires full IESG review?
>
> It is up to the IESG to decide that.

I want to clarify this because Margeret's question might be based on
the wrong assumption, possibly causing misinterpretation of the
correct answer.

There should be no "requires full IESG review" flag or state for any
document. IESG is not a special case when it comes to review. IESG or
any single AD can submit a review for any document that is up for
review, at any time. This is no different from any IETF participant
submitting a review. If IESG feels that a particular document needs
full IESG review, it is their internal business, invisible and
unpredictable to others (in general), until they submit a review. In
general, one does not know a priori whether a document will be
reviewed by IESG until the IESG submits the review.

Now, if there is a conflict that WG and a reviewer cannot resolve
despite all the negotiation efforts, then the document automatically
goes to IESG for the final conflict resolution. Such resolution may
require full IESG review, but it is internal IESG business how to
approach that. The final IESG decision is documented, of course. Note
that "a reviewer" above may be IESG (but it is not a special case).

Thus, IESG has special formal powers when it comes to conflict
resolution, but does not have (and does not need!) any special powers
or exceptions when it comes to document review. This scheme is both
simple and gives IESG full flexibility when it comes to selecting
"full IESG review" targets. We do not need to spend time documenting
what those targets might be.

Alex.

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
mpowr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email