Definition of power and responsibility

RJ Atkinson rja at extremenetworks.com
Tue Mar 4 10:12:08 CET 2003


On Tuesday, Mar 4, 2003, at 05:46 America/Montreal, Brian E Carpenter 
wrote:
> It's clear already that the IESG's power is granted to it
> by the IETF.

What has (historically) been missing was an "IESG Charter" document.
Such documents (normally issued as BCPs with the full process that
implies) constitute the formal delineation and grant of powers by
the IETF Community to the body that is chartered.

It appears that this is in the process of being remedied.

> What we seem to lack [new problem statement coming up...]
> is a clear definition of the powers granted to WG chairs
> and editors.

s/What we seem/We also seem/

This is also partly implicit in RFC-2026 (and its amendments),
but is currently ambiguous and unclear in places.

> Also, there is no power without responsibility. By granting the
> power to publish or not publish an RFC to the IESG, we have
> also given the IESG the responsibility for quality control.
> And when they carry out this responsibility, please don't
> blame them.

s/RFC/standards-track RFC or IETF-WG-originated RFC/

The IESG does NOT have the power to block publication of non-IETF
RFCs that are not on the standards-track.  Examples of non-IETF
RFCs include IAB documents, IRTF documents, and individual-submission
documents that are obviously unrelated to any IETF activity.
IESG can *recommend* to RFC-Editor that any document not be published,
but for the non-IETF documents, that is *advice* rather than an
*edict*.

> So, can we ... start talking about the need
> for clear definitions of what powers and responsibilities the
> IETF grants to *each* level in our structure?

Agree that we need more clarity.

Ran
rja at extremenetworks.com





More information about the Problem-statement mailing list