Re: Terms used in rules-update-07

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Monday, 31 July, 2006 10:57 +0200 Harald Alvestrand
<harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:

> 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
>>...
>> 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
>>...

> 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,

First, Jorge's clarification takes this particular debate
outside the scope of this conversation/ WG so we don't need to
settle it to make a decision on rules-update-07 (although I
think it may indicate that document needs some clarification and
that, in turn, might argue against its approval at this point).

As to the more general topic, if the IETF is going to preserve
and enhance its reputation as a body that produces consensus
standards based on solid, community-based engineering, it seems
to me that documents cannot be produced as "IETF approved" and
statements cannot be made that include equivalents of "the IETF
says" or "the IETF believes" without at least some serious
attempt at giving the community a chance to review and provide
input into a decision (without having to rely on appeals as a
review mechanism).  It is clear to me that the path 

	* someone produces an I-D
	* the author gets an AD, perhaps an AD with whom the
	author has a special relationship such as employment by
	the same company or working on similar projects, to
	"sponsor" the document.
	* the IESG reviews the document internally, with no
	announcement to the community that it is doing so (I
	don't consider inclusion in an IESG agenda under
	"individual submissions via AD" to be such an
	announcement)
	* the IESG passes the document to the RFC Editor with a
	requirement that it be published.
	* no formal announcement is made to the community that
	the document was under consideration, or approved, until
	the RFC is published.

does not meet the test of a serious attempt at giving the
community a chance to review and provide input.   Now, contrast
this with a WG output in which there is a charter that lists the
relevant document as an output.  There is at least notice to the
community that the work is being undertaken.  There is potential
for discussion within the WG and most such documents are
actually discussed.  One would hope that, if there is
significant dissent --or significant indifference-- within the
WG, someone would notice that and at least raise it with the AD,
perhaps forcefully.  So claiming that such a document is an IETF
product is at least plausible.

There are lots of cases in between.  Indeed, I believe that "on
the WG charter, produced as a WG-identified document, mentioned
in an IETF meeting or two, but never really discussed in the WG"
would fall in between.   If you have a model for differentiating
those from developmentand passage through the IESG without
community notice but without relying on IETF or WG Last Call,
please tell us, preferably in the form of an I-D that modifies
2026, what that mechanism might be.

FWIW, I see at least one way that the above goals could be
accomplished without requiring that the IESG issue and monitor
Last Calls.  The RFC Editor could, in principle, post notices
that documents that were not the result of IETF (or perhaps WG)
Last Call were under final review for RFC publication and
allowing a short window for comments.  Some of us believe that
should be done for independent submissions anyway, so that would
be a small extension to that idea.  Of course, that would
require giving the RFC Editor the authority to either reject an
AD-Sponsored document or to bounce it back to the IESG and
insist on a Last Call if there were significant dissent... but
it would at least avoid adding to the burden of Last Calls for
non-controversial cases, and would not, I believe, require any
modifications to 2026.

     john


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