My thoughts about the problems of the IETF
Eric Rosen
erosen at cisco.com
Fri Apr 18 10:58:03 CEST 2003
>> the AD would just pull out the "danger-to-the-net" excuse.
Scott> yup - the AD could do that, I do not expect that AD would be able
Scott> to pull that all that often w/o community support before
Scott> an appeal would be successful
The only sort of community support that is needed is support from the rest
of IESG and IAB.
Sometimes the area in which a WG is working is itself controversial, and
there is always a constituency that thinks the work is without value. If
this constituency has representation in the IESG, it can cause arbitrarily
long delays in advancing the WG's output. Then, of course, they complain
that the WG is taking too long.
Scott> in any case, I think the particular issue is more theoretical than
Scott> real if someone feels that an AD (or the IESG) is running roughshod
Scott> over a WG - appeal it, and make sure the appeal is very public
Well, I think Margaret has provided the answer to this:
Margaret> If the responsible AD doesn't agree with the document, it never
Margaret> even gets considered by the IESG or sent to IETF last-call, etc.
Margaret> It just stays stuck in "AD review" until the responsible AD
Margaret> is satisfied.
Margaret> So, yes, this amounts to unilateral veto power. Or at least to
Margaret> unilateral power to block the work. It is also tricky to appeal
Margaret> in this situation, because there is no clear decision that can
Margaret> be appealed.
On the issue of technical appeals, the cases that have been cited all seem
to have to do with cases where the process requires that certain things be
clearly specified, but the documents may not be specifying those things
clearly enough; these seems like issues of whether the WG is properly
following the necessary process.
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list