[rfc-i] path forward with RFC 3932bis

SM sm at resistor.net
Mon Sep 21 15:16:19 PDT 2009

Hi Jari,
At 01:34 19-09-2009, Jari Arkko wrote:
>As you may recall, my conclusion of the discussion was that while
>opinions were split, a dispute resolution model emerged as a potential
>compromise. A week ago I promised that we would come up with a specific


>    If dialogue fails to resolve IRSG or RFC Editor concerns with the
>    content of a particular IESG note, then they can take the matter to
>    the IAB for a final ruling.  The IAB review will occur according to
>    procedures of the IAB's own choosing.  The IAB can direct the
>    inclusion of the IESG note or withdraw the note altogether.  Unlike
>    the IAB reviews specified in RFC 4846 [I3], in this situation, the
>    IAB decision is binding, not advisory.
>The rationale for choosing this model is first of all the fact that
>normal discussion should be given an opportunity, and only if that fails
>should the dispute resolution be invoked. We have chosen a model where a
>third party, the IAB, helps resolve the conflict. We believe the use of
>a third party is a necessary part of the compromise. We also believe
>that this model allows the independence of the RFC Editor to be retained.

I assume that you would like this model to fit within the RFC Editor 
Model.  I don't expect any serious problem as to whether RFC Editor 
should be read as RSE or ISE.  Section 5 of RFC 4846 discusses about 
the formal IESG review:

   "The RFC Editor or the author may request that the IAB review the
    IESG's request to delay or not publish the document and request that
    the IAB provide an additional opinion.  Such a request will be made
    public via the RFC Editor Web site.  As with the IESG review itself,
    the IAB's opinion, if any, will be advisory.  And, as with author
    requests for an IAB technical review (see Section 4.5), the IAB is
    not obligated to perform this type of review and may decline the

The above emphasizes that the IESG review and the IAB's opinion is 
advisory.  Your text recommends making a IAB review which is binding.

>An alternative that we considered during discussion was a two-party
>model where the RFC Editor still made the final determination about the
>requested note, but was required to ask for an IAB opinion before
>ignoring the request. We are not sure if this model would work as a
>compromise, because the two party model may not satisfy those who felt

If I understood the last discussion about this draft, the compromise 
was to provide the IESG enough time to ask for an opinion/review from 
the IAB.  And now the IESG is asking for more than that.

>that the RFC Editor should not be able to decide on this on its own.
>However, the alternative does raise the bar for ignoring a request for
>an IESG note. An advantage of the alternative model is that it can be
>described purely as an application of the rules in RFC 4846. If we were
>to choose this model, the last paragraph would read as follows:

Section 4 of the draft favors informal dialogue.  That's good.  If 
don't want the RFC Editor to be able to decide on its own, you are 
turning the role into one of copy editing.  The Independent Series 
Editor (ISE) is an individual with "good standing in the technical 
community, in and beyond the IETF".  I'm not saying that the IETF or 
the IESG should not question the decisions of the ISE.  If the 
opinion of the IESG and the IAB does not weigh as much in the ISE's 
decision, it is unlikely that the ISE has a good standing in the IETF 

For what it is worth, RFC 4722 was obsoleted by RFC 5022.  The IESG 
requested the RFC Editor to publish a new RFC because of the missing IESG Note.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list