Re: Terms used in rules-update-07

[Ted Hardie <hardie at qualcomm.com>]

At 9:46 AM -0400 7/31/06, John C Klensin wrote:
>  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.

Well, first let me say that ADs who sponsor documents are already
concerned about perceived conflict of interest, so your second bullet
is pretty unlikely for "employment by the same company" unless
their relationship within the company is quite distant and the topic
one where AD sponsorship is common (Even in some of those cases,
co-ADs are asked to consider the document instead).

And that raises my second issue:  we have lots of history that says
keeping working groups around forever creates problems, so there
are topic areas where the IETF work product is the foundation of
the industry use of a protocol but there is no active WG.  What an
AD should look for in community review of a document in some of those
cases is well defined (in the URN NID case, for example, explicit review is called
out by the urn-nid list; media type review, explicit review is called
for by ietf-types list, etc.).  In others, you have the mailing list of the closed
working group to go on (e.g. LDAPEXT for LDAP extensions) and potentially
a directorate (LDAP has one such).  For standards-track document, ADs
should (and I believe usually do) consult the relevant lists (even if there
are no WGs) as well as putting out an IETF Last Call.

We could, I believe, explicitly require an IETF Last Call for all Informational
and Experimental documents that are AD sponsored; at the moment, it is
a judgement call by the AD based on what level of community review
something needs or has already received.  If we go that route, though, I
think we have to be pretty aware of what it means for review cycles
and delay.   

We've wandered off topic for this WG, though, and I suggest continuing in
private email or on ietf at ietf.org.
			regards,
				Ted











>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


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