Re: path forward with RFC 3932bis

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

On 2009-09-21 20:56, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Brian,
> 
>> I think my comment still applies - it should be the IESG that appeals
>> against the Editor's final decision, not the other way round.
>>   
> 
> Ok. I have no problem placing the burden on initiating the formal
> dispute resolution from the IESG side instead. For instance, if the
> current text says
> 
> "If dialogue fails to resolve IRSG or RFC Editor concerns with the
> content of a particular IESG note, then they can take the matter to the
> IAB for a final ruling."
> 
> to
> 
> "If dialogue fails to resolve IRSG or RFC Editor concerns with the
> content of a particular IESG note, the IESG can take the matter to the
> IAB for a final ruling."
> 
> Would this help resolve your concerns?

Yes, thanks. It may seem like a tiny point, but I think it's an issue
of principle.

     Brian