My thoughts about the problems of the IETF
Charles E. Perkins
charliep at IPRG.nokia.com
Thu Apr 17 11:27:37 CEST 2003
I was in fact aware of that decision, but from the discussion
at the last plenary I somehow got the impression it was more
of a "tie". After following Scott's convenient URL, it seems
that the IAB was supportive of many of Elz's main points.
Would someone wish to hazard a guess about either of the
- If, as I thought, this was the _first_ such decision,
does it really mean that all previous appeals were really
- Has anything changed to make the IAB more responsive to
viewpoints not represented within the IESG?
I realize these are questions that may not even have
any objective answer, but nonetheless the attempt to
shed light on the history and trends of such appeals
may give people more faith in the current process.
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 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