My thoughts about the problems of the IETF

Margaret Wasserman mrw at
Thu Apr 17 17:53:32 CEST 2003

At 04:48 PM 4/17/2003 -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
>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
>veto power?

It's worse (or better?) than that...

If the responsible AD doesn't agree with the document, it never
even gets considered by the IESG or sent to IETF last-call, etc.
It just stays stuck in "AD review" until the responsible AD
is satisfied.

So, yes, this amounts to unilateral veto power.  Or at least to
unilateral power to block the work.  It is also tricky to appeal
in this situation, because there is no clear decision that can
be appealed.  I agree that the I-D tracker should help us to
identify documents that get stuck in this way, so that we can
apply pressure to get them un-stuck.

We've been quite lucky to have leaders who seldom (if ever)
abuse this power.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list