My thoughts about the problems of the IETF
rdroms at cisco.com
Thu Apr 17 17:48:38 CEST 2003
So, Keith's explanation pre-supposes that an AD will vote "yes"
on a protocol action s/he has brought to the IESG. Is that
in conflict with Scott's assertion that an AD overriding a
WG's consensus about a document is a violation of process?
Suppose the AD is the only IESG member who objects to a
protocol action? Wouldn't the requirement that an AD
support a protocol action amount to giving the AD unilateral
At 04:42 PM 4/17/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>> My understanding is that an AD does a preliminary review before
>> the IESG sees a doc. What is the AD looking for - editorial
>> changes, fundamental problems with the protocol?
>you know the blurbs that come with the announcements that IESG has
>approved something or other? the AD is filling in those blanks.
>the AD is supposed to make assertions that the working group followed
>the processes, and about the quality of the protocol and the document.
>in other words the AD is supposed to explain why he/she is voting
>"yes" for this protocol action, and why the document should be approved
>in the absence of objections from other IESG folks.
More information about the Problem-statement