Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

[Ben Campbell <ben at estacado.net>]

On Aug 31, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 2009-09-01 05:56, Ben Campbell wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission
> > > stream.
> > >
> > > We ask the IESG to review these documents, and that review is  
> > > technical.
> > >
> > > I don't think it is appropriate for an editor to make a judgment of
> > > whether
> > > a technical note is, or is not appropriate to be included in a
> > > document.  I
> > > think the presumption should be that it is appropriate, and the
> > > authors have
> > > a way to object.  While I understand the role of the ISE is somewhat
> > > different from the RFC Editor, I understand the role to be primarily
> > > editorial and we are not choosing the ISE with regard to their  
> > > ability to
> > > make judgments like whether the IESG note is appropriate or not.
> > >
> > > I think it would be okay to have the note go through an IETF  
> > > consensus
> > > call.
> >
> > +1 , including the "IETF consensus call" part.
>
> I don't understand how IETF consensus is relevant to a non-IETF  
> document.

Can't the IETF can have a consensus that a non-IETF document relates  
to other IETF work in some way?

> In fact the answer to Jari's question appears to be a matter of logic,
> not of opinion. The IESG, which acts for the IETF, logically cannot
> determine anything about the contents of a non-IETF document. So the
> inclusion of an IESG note can only be a request.

How would you expect the RFC editor to evaluate such a request? Under  
what circumstances would it be reasonable to refuse to include it?

>     Brian