My thoughts about the problems of the IETF

Bound, Jim Jim.Bound at
Thu Apr 17 22:59:08 CEST 2003

It is really bad if told to change x, y, z, if the AD does not have
discussion and defend why.  Appealing this I am not sure is wise unless
it is dictated and not presented.  So maybe there needs to be some
process but the IESG has to be able to provide recommendations too or
else we end up with anarchy.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: john.loughney at [mailto:john.loughney at] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 3:22 PM
> To: kempf at
> Cc: problem-statement at
> Subject: RE: My thoughts about the problems of the IETF 
> Hi James,
> > 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. Section 6.5.2 has this 
> to say about
> > appeals:
> > 
> >    An individual (whether a participant in the relevant 
> Working Group or
> >    not) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation 
> based on his or
> >    her belief that either (a) his or her own views have not been
> >    adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the 
> Working Group
> >    has made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality
> >    and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant
> >    jeopardy.  The first issue is a difficulty with Working Group
> >    process;  the latter is an assertion of technical error. 
>  These two
> >    types of disagreement are quite different, but both are 
> handled by
> >    the same process of review.
> > 
> > The RFC then goes on to describe the appeal process.
> 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?  This is what I 
> think most people have been complaining about.
> I am not trying to be inflamatory, but generally curious - 
> can the WG or document editor pose a challenge to the IESG in 
> such a circumstance? Is there an official appeals process?
> br,
> John

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list