Re: Terms used in rules-update-07

[Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>]

John C Klensin wrote:
> Remember that, under the "AD-sponsored" theory of informational or 
> experimental RFCs, the IESG is not required to manage a Last Call on 
> those documents, announce the action it is considering taking, or 
> involve the IETF community (or seek its consensus) in any way beyond 
> the simple fact of publication as an Internet-Draft.  The AD 
> sponsorship model has seemed relatively harmless to me, and possibly 
> beneficial, but, if those documents are part of the standards track, 
> we have a whole series of issues about announcements, possibility for 
> appeal, and other appropriate process that, it seems to me, require 
> modifications to 2026, approval of the ISOC Board and insurance 
> carriers, etc.
>
> I don't see how "IESG approved" can be used to substitute for "IETF 
> produced" unless we are going to go back and modify 2026 to extend the 
> IESG's authority to decide things without any contact with the 
> community other than the wisdom and intuitions of the IESG 
> membership.  Jorge, it would be different if you said "any document 
> that went through IETF Last Call and was subsequently approved" was an 
> IETF document.  But I just don't think there is and foundation for 
> equating "IESG approved" with "approved in the IETF" and hence part of 
> the standards process. It actually seems to me that such an 
> interpretation is fraught with dangers. 
John,

from my perspective, your argument says that it's impossible for the 
IESG to consider the opinions of the community on a document without a 
Last Call.

I don't buy that.

Stuff is being produced in the IETF *all the time* through mechanisms 
that may or may not include a Last Call, and may or may not include WG 
processing.

Limiting the "product of the IETF" label to stuff that is produced by 
exactly two mechanisms - IETF Last Call and IETF WG consensus call - 
will, to my mind, be harmful.
And if we do not want to declare and police such a restrictive label, I 
don't see any reason to declare "AD sponsored" documents out of scope.

                               Harald


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg