My thoughts about the problems of the IETF

Eric Rosen erosen at
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