My thoughts about the problems of the IETF

Margaret Wasserman mrw at
Thu Apr 17 14:02:24 CEST 2003

Hi Charlie,

Actually, I have a counter-example...

Recently, Robert Elz filed an appeal against the IPv6 WG,
claiming that we had not done complete interoperability
testing for the IPv6 addressing architecture and/or that
the interoperability requirements were not clear enough to
warrant publication as a Draft Standard.  [I'm not
explaining this very well, so if you want to know more,
go to the IAB web site and read the text of the appeal.]

This appeal was denied by the IESG, but that decision
was overturned by the IAB and the appeal was upheld.
Since this was a technical appeal, the IAB's decision
was final.

The IPv6 WG has agreed to update the IPv6 addressing
architecture to make the interoperability requirements
more clear.

So, at least one appeal has been successful.  This is
also one example of the IAB overruling the IESG on a
technical issue.


At 09:55 AM 4/17/2003 -0700, Charles E. Perkins wrote:

>Hello Jim,
>Up until now, I believe it is the case that
>every appeal has failed.  Most of the time,
>it seems to become an embarrassment and hassle
>for anyone so bold or foolish as to try.
>I certainly wouldn't do it, because it would
>take way lots of time and I'd be just as
>likely to stop unjust wars as win such an appeal.
>Maybe it's because the IESG is always right
>after all... (?)
>Charlie P.
>James Kempf wrote:
> > There seems to be a common misconception in IETF that people can't
> > appeal a WG or IESG decision based on technical grounds. RFC 2026 is
> > quite clear that this is possible.

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list