[rfc-i] I-D ACTION:draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-10.txt

Russ Housley housley at vigilsec.com
Thu Oct 8 11:12:31 PDT 2009


>Speaking pragmatically, I believe that creating a binding
>inter-stream appeal process probably requires reopening both
>4846 and 4844 and, given many of  the comments on the IETF list
>about the previous drafts, would lead to our having to recycle
>the discussion of the appropriateness of the role of the
>multiple-stream model and whether the IESG gets a "first among
>equals" role or better.  I don't believe that repeating that
>discussion yet again would serve the community well and that is
>another big argument for the advisory approach.

I think everyone agree that the IAB has an oversight role here.  Many 
of the people on this list have already advocated the need for an 
appeals process to resolve disagreements about the content of notes 
suggested by the IESG.  This is not about the content of the document 
itself.  If it were, then I could understand your concern, but it is 
only about the content of the note.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list