Comments on section 5.2.2 of IESG charter
(draft-iesg-charter-02.txt)
John C Klensin
klensin at jck.com
Tue May 13 14:50:58 CEST 2003
I have copied the problem-statement list on this because the
draft Charter text does not precisely describe current practice,
violates/ changes the provisions of RFC 2026, and is arguably
the root of a problem that has been discussed on that list.
Detailed discussion probably belongs on the Poised list only.
For the information of problem-statement participants who are
not subscribed to the poised list, this note accompanies a much
longer one that comments on other sections of the IESG Charter
I-D.
---------------
> Section 5.2 Non-working group documents
>...
> Section 5.2.2. Informational and Experimental documents
> "NOTE IN DRAFT ... The IESG is discussing".
Procedurally, I don't understand how you can propose to issue an
Last Call while this note is still in the text. If the IESG has
reached a conclusion, it should be posted to to the list.
My own view is that this "procedure" has been the source of
considerable abuse, much of it starting from good intentions,
and that it has few benefits. In particular, as I understand
the procedures, if a document goes to the RFC Editor, there is
expected to be a fairly quick review for relevance and
publishability (see my comments on 2223bis), followed by handoff
to the IESG with a timeout. While the IESG can request
additional time, I would expect those requests to reflect IESG
consensus (however lightweight), to be accompanied with a
reason, and for the request and reason to appear in IESG
minutes. I would expect, or at least hope, that the RFC Editor
would not grant extensions indefinitely and I would assume that
an IESG action to repeatedly ask for extensions (or to ask for a
very long extension) would be appealable. The IESG review is
also constrained (by 2026) to catching end-runs and damaging or
high-risk proposals only: the IESG is not supposed to be able to
block a document, using these normal procedures, because, e.g.,
some AD simply disagrees with what it says.
Now, contrast this with the history of IESG taking
responsibility/ control of these individual-contribution
informational or experimental documents and the procedure you
have outlined in this section. The text says:
> When an AD decides that an Informational or Experimental
> document is of particular importance to the community, the
> AD may also choose to put it directly before the IESG.
> This document will then be processed in the same fashion as
> an Informational or Experimental document from a working
> group.
The decision is made by an individual AD, not by IESG consensus.
The decision does not even require the agreement of either the
author (which deviates somewhat from current practice as I
understand it). The RFC Editor timeout doesn't apply, so there
are no constraints --even those created by pressure from an
angry WG-- to promote timeliness. And, from observation, the
limitations on IESG review of an independent submission imposed
by 2026 don't apply either: if the document is handled "in the
same fashion as... from a Working Group", the AD can apply
whatever standards he or she likes as to when the document has
been adequately nit-picked before releasing it for IESG review.
While I'm not aware of its having occurred, an AD who was
hostile to the content of a particular individual contribution
could easily declare it as "of particular importance" and then
bury it or kill it with the death of a thousand cuts (or nits).
I would suggest, if the IESG really feels a need to do this,
that the decision to treat an individually-submitted document as
if it were a WG one should require IESG consensus, up front,
about that treatment. That consensus should be reflected in
minutes, the reasons given, and it should be entered into the
tracking system. The IESG should then also agree on the AD (or
Area) to which the document should be assigned. In other words,
if the documents are to be processed as if they were WG ones,
they should undergo similar IESG signoff and approval --before
AD review begins-- as that for a WG. If the document is not
_that_ important, then it should be processed through the
normal, "submit to the RFC Editor" process.
In the much larger number of cases in which one or more ADs
consider a document important, but not important enough to
process as if it were from a WG, I suggest that the IESG has, or
could establish, mechanisms for giving the RFC Editor proactive
feedback that a particular document should be given greater or
lesser priority. The RFC Editor would, of course, not be bound
by that type of advice, but unless the IAB disagreed, I would
assume that they would continue to treat IESG advice and
requests with courtesy and good sense as they have done in the
past.
regards,
john
p.s. As I mentioned in my comments on 2223bis, the elimination
of the User Services area has essentially created a loose end
with regard to FYI RFCs. The are clearly not standards-track,
unlike the slightly gray-area BCPs which we treat as
standards-track for most purposes. If the IESG intends to
specify which RFCs get an FYI designation, then this Charter
document should probably say that. If it intends to delegate
that job to the RFC Editor, then some appropriate offspring of
2223bis should define the RFC Editor's process for initiating or
considering the action/ designation. And, if we intend to not
issue any new FYI documents, then there is a bit of tidying up
that should be done elsewhere.
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list