Re: Issue 3 (Re: [INDEP] Forward with independent

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Bob Braden wrote:
>    *> So the cases where we have a conflict are:
>   *> 
>   *> 1) The RFC Editor decides to publish documents that it knows are harmful 
>   *> to the Internet
>
> Harald,
>
> This case is ludicrous.  The RFC Editor would certainly never publish a
> document that it believes to be harmful to the Internet.  However, in
> fact no one can ever know for sure whether harm will result from
> publication of any particular specification.  It is all relative.

I assume that Harald included this case as something of a reductio
ad absurdum - and I assume we all agree that such a foolish (and
unlikely) decision would be grounds for action by the IAB.

>   *> 
>   *> 2) The RFC Editor disagrees with the IESG about whether or not they are 
>   *> harmful to the Internet
>
> This is the only meaningful case, and it is the one that causes
> conflict.  For example, the IESG feared that RFC 2188 would harm the
> Internet, but the RFC Editor finally decided that we did not believe
> it, and published anyway.  I don't think there was any harm as a
> result.

The question really is whether ESRO *would* be harmful if widely
deployed. I don't think, judging by www.esro.org, that this question
has been tested.

> There have been half a dozen cases over the past 8 years when the RFC
> Editor really did not believe the IESG's claim of harm, but we chose not
> to publish just because we wanted to be cooperative with the IESG.

Just to say it again: the currently agreed process, RFC 3932, *does not allow*
the IESG to use this justification for a Do Not Publish recommendation. It
certainly doesn't prevent the IESG (or individuals in the IESG) expressing
such an opinion, but that is a different matter.

    Brian

_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
INDEPENDENT at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent