Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:46:04 -0400

--On Thursday, 21 July, 2005 13:59 -0400 Sam Hartman
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>     John> and without any prejudice from the IESG
>     John> review.  
> 
> If you mean that the IESG should treat the process fairly, I
> agree. If you mean that the IESG should not express an opinion
> I disagree.

I am not opposed to the IESG expressing opinions.  However, I
think the IESG needs to be _extremely_ careful --both internally
and in public-- to not reach a conclusion on one of these things
and lock it in, especially if that conclusion is reached without
significant community input.   This is, to me, part of the judge
and jury issue that Brian mentioned some time ago.  If you have
the opinion that pursuing something through an IETF process
would be a bad idea, you are, IMO, welcome to say so.  But you
are then, again IMO, absolutely obligated to facilitate such an
effort procedurally if it is proposed to see if IETF support is
really out there... possibly even facilitating it more strongly
than if you had not expressed a collective opinion.   

If, by contract, you (collectively) discourage someone from
pursuing something that the IESG concluded that it didn't like
sufficiently to approve it during the IETG review cycle, and
then use the IESG's considerable procedural discretion to block
an effort by the requestors to get IETF review or to starve such
a review for resources, then you set up the appearance of an
abuse of authority and, perhaps worse, create a situation in
which an attempt to get IETF review of an allocation request
must be managed by either intimidation or appeal (or by
repetitive discussions on the IETF list :-( ).

Several people have observed of late that they would prefer to
see IESG service viewed as rather more like jury duty with its
sense of short-term obligations to the community, rather than as
a role similar to either career judicial appointments or of
anointed kings.   It seems to me that, to some extent, this is
another aspect of that distinction.  Yes, it is reasonable that
the IESG be able to make quick affirmative decisions when those
are clearly in order because it saves everyone time.  But, when
we get to the point where something requires community
consensus, I believe that you are obligated to take on that
"jury" role, soliciting community input as fairly as possible
and then interpreting it equally fairly, without letting your
personal or collective prior views intrude except insofar as
they inform the questions you ask of the community.   

If, instead or in addition to that jury-role, you start
influencing the community process by controlling resources or
input to support your prior opinions, then we are at high risk.
And, if I were forced to choose between a fair, open, and
balanced community process if one is initiated and the IESG
expressing an opinion, I would suggest that the IESG should not
even be permitted to _have_ an opinion and that anyone on the
IESG who expresses one should recuse him or herself from all
further discussions on the matter.  But I don't think we need to
make that choice: I think you folks are more than capable of
having and expressing opinions and then coordinating a fair and
balanced process.   The issue may well have had more to do with
how the opinion was expressed than what was intended, but the
statement about the Roberts allocation request that started
these threads seemed to go a bit over the line in that regard
and I think we are now in the process of the community
clarifying what it wants and expects.

>     John> even "no, and we recommend that you go away and not
> pursue     John> this" should not be options unless there
> really is evidence     John> of community consensus.
> 
> Strongly disagreed.

See above.  I have no problem with your saying the above if you
are _absolutely_ sure, and can convince onlookers, that, if the
applicant then goes ahead and tries to pursue it, the IESG will
do absolutely nothing to block that course of action, even by
passive resistance.  Put differently, if you make a statement
that strong, I believe you actually take on more responsibility
for facilitating an effort to pursue the request with the
community than you would have had if you didn't have an opinion
on the subject of whether it should be pursued (note "didn't
have" not just "didn't express"). 

When the IESG (or its members) get to say

	* no, we won't approve this.
	
	* you can pursue it with the community but we recommend
	that you not do that.  And
	
	* if you do pursue it, we will (or may) starve you for
	resources

or anything that sounds vaguely like that, then the IESG is
essentially making final decisions not declining one particular
type of approval option.  And I don't think that is acceptable,
even if somehow thinly disguisted.

> I agree that your draft addresses most of these issues.  It
> happens to do so in a manner I believe I disagree with and
> hope to convince the community is at least significantly
> wrong.  However I do agree that if the community approves of
> your draft, it would establish the criteria I'm asking for.

Clarity about where we disagree is always progress.

> Next week before getting on the plane I have catching up on
> newtrk and reading your document scheduled.  I will make
> detailed comments.

I will look forward to them.

    john

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:50:04 +0200

Paul,

That seems like the most resonable approach to me. Are current requests archived now?

John

-- original message --
Subject:	Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt
From:	Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date:		07/22/2005 11:03 pm

At 3:51 PM -0400 7/22/05, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 07:35, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>  BTW, this conversation and a side conversation with John has convinced
>>  me that IESG review should involve a call for comments phase.
>
>A call for comments requires having something for the community to
>comment on.
>
>Will an internet draft will be required from folks seeking IESG review
>of a proposed assignment, or will we invent yet another mechanism for
>circulating a description of the proposal to the community?

It would make sense for the IESG to send to the community what was 
sent to them; that way, we can judge what they are judging. If it was 
a pointer to an Internet Draft, great; a pointer to some other 
document(s) works just as well.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium