Re: Appeal from Phillip Hallam-Baker on the publication of RFC 7049 on the Standards Track

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Dear IESG,
At 06:11 20-02-2014, Ralph Droms wrote:
My concern is that we not establish some de facto extension to our processes by labeling this particular example of complaint resolution as a formal appeal.

I share the concern that the IESG will establish the case at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg86168.html as a extension to the processes if it is labelled as a formal appeal.

There was the following comment from Hadriel Kaplan during the Last Call ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg81414.html ):

  "I think publishing it as Proposed Standard would be ok if there
   wasn't strong disagreement, but it appears there is strong
   disagreement, including on how it came to be."

It was clear to the IESG that there appeared to be strong disagreement. I'll highlight the following from Section 6.5.2 of RFC 2026:

  "The IESG is the principal agent of the IETF for this purpose, and it
  is the IESG that is charged with ensuring that the required procedures
  have been followed, and that any necessary prerequisites to a standards
  action have been met."

I have the following question:

Is it the responsibility of the IESG to respond to an appeal about a process
     issue once a draft has gone through an IETF Last Call?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]