Subject: Re: [Pesci-discuss] Fw: (from Techspec) Non-Author Editing

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:31:41 -0500 (EST)

Sam sed:
> I don't think this is true.  I think an IETF consensus can and should
> be able to change the text of a WG draft over a WG objection.

in theory this sounds like a Good Thing because I think it would result in
the best technology & standards but  moving from theory and real process 
could be tricky. 

The assumption in RFC 2026 etc is that the results of the IETF last call 
and/or IESG review go back to the WG for the WG to decide what to do 
(i.e. the pen is not given over to someone else w/o the WG buyin - for
example to th RFC Editor notes the IESG can add to Protocol Action
notices) 

Having a process to tell the WG that it MUST make a particular change is 
not currently in the process but that does not mean that it can not be done.
(some people have complained that this happens already when an IESG
member makes it clear that a DISCUSS will not be cleared until a 
particulkar change is made in a document)

I do not think that the IESG "can and should be able to change the text of a 
WG draft over a WG objection" so the process of determining "IETF consensus" 
for requiring a change over the WG's "better judgement" needs some
thinking out so as to not have the IESG be tempted to take on that
role

Scott

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:27:40 -0500

>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> writes:

    Scott> Sam sed:
    >> I don't think this is true.  I think an IETF consensus can and
    >> should be able to change the text of a WG draft over a WG
    >> objection.

    Scott> in theory this sounds like a Good Thing because I think it
    Scott> would result in the best technology & standards but moving
    Scott> from theory and real process could be tricky.

I think we disagree about what 2026 says.  I do agree with you that a
WG needs to have rough consensus to publish something as a WG
document.  However if the outcome of an IETf last call is that "foo
must become bar," then that document's not moving until foo becomes
bar.  If the WG doesn't like it, well, we can probably find someone to
take the same text and submit it as an individual submission.

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:56:20 -0500 (EST)

Sam sez:
> However if the outcome of an IETf last call is that "foo

that prcess id not called out in 2026 but then again 2026 specifically 
did not try to call out every possibility

2026 wants to see a WG recommendation to kick off a review process
	i.e. WG consensus

2026 then says that the IESG does a last call and after the last call
   In a timely fashion after the expiration of the Last-Call period, the
   IESG shall make its final determination of whether or not to approve
   the standards action, and shall notify the IETF of its decision via
   electronic mail to the IETF Announce mailing list.

2026 paints a picture a binary choice for the IESG - yes or no to publication

the IESG has been operating in a work-it-out-with-the-WG-or-the-editor
mode for quite a while - not in a ignore-WG-consensus mode

but lets look at the situation Sam postulates

WG has consensus for foo 

there is a clear (and for the sake of discussion widespread)
IETF last call consensus that foo->bar

changing the document editor would not change the WG consensus - it
would be seen as bypassing the IETF WG process

(note that document editors do get changed from time to time - sometimes over
their objections - as AD I was part of doing that more than once - but
that was because the editor was seen as not following WG consensus so
swapping an editor because he or she was following WG consensus weems
a bit funny

to me the correct process would be to kick the document back to the WG,
tell the folk who commented in the Last Call to join the wg list
and tell the WG to take a fresh look at the issue.

I do not see that the IESG has the authority to override a WG consensus
other than to say "no" to a publish request - I do not see that the
IESG has the authority to edit a document brought before it (by 
RFC Editor note or by ordering in a new document editor) without
the WG buy-in (note that doing just that was one of the things that
got the IAB reassigned)

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:26:39 +0100

Scott Bradner wrote:
...
> and tell the WG to take a fresh look at the issue.

Effectively that's what happened with draft-ietf-lemonade-mms-mapping,
after appeal, so I guess when it came to the crunch, the IESG agreed
with you.

If this is a lack of clarity in 2026, that sounds like a newtrk issue.

     Brian