Subject: RE: [newtrk] last call on newtrk draft charetr

From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar \(UMKC-Student\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:22:41 -0600

>>> the key phrase in your statement is "individual submissions" -
>>> we need to remember that IETF WGs produce a lot of informational
>>> RFCs as part of their work - those info RFCs do get full IESG review
>>>
>>> John is talking about individual submissions (non WG) directly to
>>> the RFC Editor - the IESG (in RFC 2026) has minimal review authority
>>> over those documents
>>
>> maybe we need to fix that.  it seem perverse to give more scrutiny to
>> WG documents than to individual submissions that have the same status.
>
>Alternatively - it seems perverse to give the same status to WG documents
>that have had IETF scrutiny and consensus as to individual submissions that
>have not.....
 
In this context, what is the procedure for individual submissions when a 
related WG exists (with a active charter etc...)? recently, I have 
seen two cases where folks try to bypass WG review( e.g., midcom TURN,
draft-touch-ipsec-vpn-06.txt) Is it not necessary that they represent
related WG consensus? what happens if they conflict with the WG active
charter item?

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:44:46 -0800

Since this is far afield from the charter....

> related WG consensus? what happens if they conflict with the WG active

This is one of the things the IESG *is* supposed to review for.
The most common thing that happens (there's no 100% ironclad procedure) is 
that the AD in charge of the WG gets to look at the document for the IESG, 
and the AD asks the WG chair what they think.
The reactions can be, for instance:

- "it's harmless - publish it" (IESG says OK to RFC Editor)
- "it's good - we'd like to work on it" (negotiation with author results)
- "publication would harm the work of the WG" (IESG says NO to RFC Editor, 
RFC Editor says to the author "come back in 6 months or when you have 
convinced the WG").

Look at some of the IESG's do-not-publish notes for examples.

                    Harald

.