My thoughts about the problems of the IETF

john.loughney at john.loughney at
Thu Apr 17 23:50:07 CEST 2003

Hi Scott,

> > But what happens when an AD or IESG member tells a document editor
> > to change x, y & z before a draft can pass IESG review?  Is there
> > any way to appeal this?
> to be clear I'd say yes & no  :-)

Yup, it is clear!
> no - its not written into 2026
> yes - if someone appeals such a thing it would be really bad 
> 	if the IESG &/or IAB were to rule it out of order rather than
> 	address the issue
> but also - yes
> 	if the AD says that and the WG specifically has consensus
> 	a different way that it would be a process violation to
> 	override the WG consensus

Of course, what is probably needed (and is now somewhat more transparent
due to the draft tracker) is the conversations between the IESG/ADs
and the document editors.  Communication between document editors & the IESG 
has not always been entirely direct, so it has not been entirely
apparent to the WG at large as to what the IESG expects ... this is 
something that we need to make sure is fixed & stays fixed.

> this might sound counter to what I posted earlier today but if
> a AD/IESG pushback to a WG for a security or danger-to-the-net
> issue can not get WG consus to fix then we are in a pile of problem

But I think that is worth another thread ...


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list