Clarifying and Updating the Document Conflict Review Procedure
draft-klensin-iesg-rfc5742bis-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-09-14
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         J. Klensin
Internet-Draft                                        September 14, 2018
Updates: 5742 (if approved)
Intended status: Best Current Practice
Expires: March 18, 2019

     Clarifying and Updating the Document Conflict Review Procedure
                    draft-klensin-iesg-rfc5742bis-00

Abstract

   The IESG procedures for conducting conflict reviews of Independent
   and IRTF Stream Submissions, described in RFC 5742, have proven
   excessively restrictive in ways that prevent the IESG from adequately
   expressing its opinions and that can interfere with an open and
   transparent process.  This document updates RFC 5742 to mitigate that
   problem.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 18, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Klensin                  Expires March 18, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           Conflict Review Update           September 2018

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Proposal Part I: Add a Missing Category to RFC 5742 . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Changes to RFC 5742 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Proposal Part II: Clarify and Extend the Permanent "Do Not
       Publish" Recommendations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Changes to RFC 5742 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Proposal Part III: Make Authorization for IESG Flexibility
       and Discretion Explicit in RFC 5742 . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Change to RFC 5742  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Further Context and Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Definition of an "IETF Protocol"  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Procedure for Updating a Specification Published as an
           RFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Possible Future Work: The Variance Procedure  . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Appendix A.  Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   Note in Draft: Entries below that consist of a left square bracket,
   one or more digits, and a right square bracket are references to the
   Endnotes in Appendix A.

   In 2009, the IESG proposed, approved, and published a description of
   the procedures it intended to use to process the conflict reviews of
   Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions [RFC5742].  Those reviews
   were called for by earlier specifications that had been extensively
   debated in the community [RFC4846] [RFC5743].  In addition to
   outlining procedures to be followed, RFC 5742 includes a set of
   categories into which IESG responses are expected to fall and
   corresponding text to be used in responses to the relevant stream
   managers.  At least in retrospect, some members of the community
   believed that that those categories and textual statements specified
Show full document text