Subject: Re: Method Reviewer

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 12:51:52 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:

> Wait a sec. John is complaining that a CHANGE REQUEST was
> approved; which means that it was submitted by someone,
> discussed on the list, found to have consensus and then the
> REVIEWER proposed acceptance to the AREA DIRECTORS.

Correction: the process in 2445 does not include the ADs (except
that they appoint the Method Reviewer in the first place).  The
MR passes accepted proposals directly to IANA.

> Where is the problem here? If there was a problem with the
> proposal, then it would have been aired in the review period.
> If there is real objections during the review, then the
> objections will have to be addressed prior to consensus being
> reached.

Yes, but who defines consensus? I don't think we have a
definition (RFC-2026 uses the term many times, but never
describes how to tell when it's been achieved).  The usual rule
of thumb seems to be, "I know it when I see it".

> Right? So, where is the problem here?

The problem is that, as the process is written today, the MR can
unilaterally declare that he sees consensus and accept a
proposal, and there is no channel to overrule him.

> Do we want forward progress to be held hostage by a single
> objection that gets perpetuated by a series of escallation
> appeals?

(a) Yes, of course.  Everything in the normal IETF process has a
channel for appeals, to make sure that power doesn't get
concentrated in a single person, or even in a single WG.  See
RFC-2026, section 6.5, which provides an appeals process for
standards-track RFCs, in which an appeal can go first to the AD,
then to the IESG, then to the IAB.

(b) No, of course not.  In the case of an obvious abuse of the
appeals process, where it's clear that the appeal will be
rejected, people can go ahead and start implementing anyway.  By
the time the code is written, the appeal will be over.

I don't expect that this is a problem that would come up often,
but processes are just like code: they need to be designed to
handle the weird cases as well as the normal ones.

> The existing process appears to have due-process and has been
> proofed through experience with the MIME registration process.

As I said before, MIME does not do it the same way.  From my
previous message:

>> MIME (specifically, RFC-2048, "MIME Registration Procedures")
>> does specify an access type reviewer, but permits all the
>> reviewer's decisions to be appealed (see section 3.2.2).
>>
--
/===============================================================\
|John Stracke    |http://www.ecal.com|My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist |==============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |The problem with any unwritten law is that you|
[email-masked]|don't know where to go to erase it.           |
\===============================================================/

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 19:56:00 +0200

> MR passes accepted proposals directly to IANA.

Correct. The AD is the one appointing the MR, and therefore the one which
should take action if an MR is not doing his job -- to speak plain english.

   Patrik
   Area Director, Applications Area

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 14:29:51 -0400

> should take action if an MR is not doing his job -- to speak plain english.

Right.  Basically, my position boils down to, "When the AD decides to take
action, one of his options should be to overturn the MR's decision".

--
/===============================================================\
|John Stracke    |http://www.ecal.com|My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist |==============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Q: What goes "Pieces of 7! Pieces of 7!"? A: A|
[email-masked]|parroty error.                                |
\===============================================================/

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 14:31:05 -0400

> MR passes accepted proposals directly to IANA.

To clarify: I do not have a problem with this, as long as the MR's
decisions can be appealed.  Optimizing the normal case is a Good
Thing.

--
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke    |http://www.ecal.com|My opinions are my own.     |
|Chief Scientist |================================================|
|eCal Corp.      |"Where's your sense of adventure?" "Hiding under|
[email-masked]|the bed."                                       |
\=================================================================/

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 21:40:40 +0200

> decisions can be appealed.  Optimizing the normal case is a Good

My thinking on how this should work in gnereal is that:

(1) There is a review process described, which can for example be that the
proposal should be announced on a mailing list

(2) This mailinglist is viewed among other people by the MR, which is
appointed by the AD(s)

(3) The MR looks at the comments on the mailing list and declares consensus
or not, given that the proposal fulfils all requirements regarding
documentation, technical clearity etc etc, and this is reported to IANA

(4) The descision of the MR can be appealed to the AD, then the IESG, then
the IAB etc etc like "normal" appeal process

If this is not what is described in the iCal (or whatever) RFCs, then maybe
they should be updated. I guess the MIME ones are the ones which describe
this "the best way as of today" so you/one should have a look at them
before carving things in stone.

   Patrik

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 16:45:01 -0400

> the IAB etc etc like "normal" appeal process

Right--this is where the process in RFC-2445 diverges: the only decision that
can be appealed is a decision to reject.

--
/============================================================\
|John Stracke    |http://www.ecal.com|My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |===========================================|
|eCal Corp.      |If God had meant us to be in the Army, we  |
[email-masked]|would've been born with green, baggy skin. |
\============================================================/

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 06:59:35 +0200

--On ons 1 sep 1999 16.45 -0400 John Stracke <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Right--this is where the process in RFC-2445 diverges: the only decision
> that can be appealed is a decision to reject.

Ok, I think "general" appeal should be possible.

  Patrik