My thoughts about the problems of the IETF
mrw at windriver.com
Thu Apr 17 16:06:02 CEST 2003
I think that this is all an argument about how we use the
terms "technical" and "process".
In an appeal, I think that anything that concerns technical
issues is a technical appeal, and therefore can't be appealed
Let's assume, for the moment, that the IAB had come back with
a finding in the Elz appeal that said "Ah ha! The IPv6 group
didn't check for two interoperable implementations of <foo>."
This would still, IMO, be a technical finding on a technical
appeal... If we appealed that decision to ISOC, I hope they
would refuse to consider it, as they have no more place in
deciding what constitutes a feature of IPv6 that needs to be
tested for interoperability than they do in deciding if an
IPv6 document is technically correct or sufficiently clear.
At 01:53 PM 4/17/2003 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
>On 4/17/03 at 2:21 PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>>But, the Elz appeal was a technical issue involving document clarity.
>Actually, I believe (and Robert can correct me if I'm wrong if he's
>listening) that the Elz appeal *was* about a process violation (not
>checking for two implementations), but the IAB decided that the document
>was not clear enough to determine what the protocol required. They
>sidestepped the issue of whether there actually was a process violation.
>Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick at qualcomm.com>
>QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
More information about the Problem-statement