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

Dave CROCKER dhc2 at dcrocker.net
Thu Oct 15 18:36:14 PDT 2009


Jari Arkko wrote:
> It is not news that what we proposed as a compromise position isn't optimal 
> from some people's point of view. But a small number of voices should not 
> drive the entire community's choice.

We agree, yet oddly land on different sides.

A review of the public record shows relatively minimal voiced support for the
IESG insistence that it be able to override the RFC Editor's decision.

That is, my reading of the record says that the small number is on the side of 
terminating the multi-decade RFC Editor independence. Perhaps my reading is 
wrong.  An accounting assessment of community views, justifying claims of rough 
consensus, is the usual approach towards resolving this kind of disparity.

> Also, I believe the first order of priority is to find out what the IETF and 
> the larger community wants to do here.

In the face of a complex problem space, combined with a complex solutions space,
and controversy about both, the first priority should be to establish rough
consensus about the problem that is intended to be solved.

That hasn't been done.

Get us to agree on the nature of the "problem" and its degree of severitym --
and therefore the dangers that come from not "solving" it -- and we might be
able to get some common perspectives on solutions.


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list