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

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:21:43 +0200

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the IESG to use this justification for a Do Not Publish recommendation.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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:59:40 +0200

> publication of any particular specification.  It is all relative.
Yes, it's ludicrous. That's why I wanted to call out the case - if you 
name this beast, people can see it's unreasonable.
> it, and published anyway.  I don't think there was any harm as a
As Brian said - "not tested". The disclaimer may have helped.

But if we have public visibility into what the RFC Editor considers 
publishing at one point, I think it may be much more likely that someone 
else discovers that the document is harmful than it is that the IESG 
does - that's one reason why I don't see a need to grant the IESG 
special powers in this area.

I do think it's important to facilitate open communication about 
documents under RFC Editor review.

                  Harald

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:39:28 -0700

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>   *>   *> 1) The RFC Editor decides to publish documents that it knows
>> are harmful   *> to the Internet
>>
>> Harald,
>>

Action by the ISOC as contractor, *if* this is considered violation of
the contract.

I still haven't seen a mechanism for governance of the RFC Editor that
addresses independent process sufficiently, and still disagree with the
IAB as that arbiter.

Joe