Appeal for forwarding of draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv (Aijun Wang) - 2025-04-29
Response - 2025-06-16

Summary

The IAB has considered the appeal from Aijun Wang, originally filed on 29th April 2025, and clarified in an email dated 30th April 2025 (link). Roman Danyliw and Warren Kumari recused themselves from consideration of this appeal.

The appeal is centered around the claim that the IESG did not accomplish its roles with regard to the approval of 'Multi-Part TLVs in IS-IS' (draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv) as a Proposed Standard. Further, the appeal requests that the IAB take a number of actions, including (but not limited to) instructing members of the IESG to respond to claims made by the appellant regarding alleged technical issues with the draft, and for the IAB to hold a hearing on these issues.

The IAB has reviewed the discussion and decisions, and finds that the IESG fulfilled its role correctly per the relevant BCPs in processing and approving the draft. The IAB, therefore, declines to take further action.

Additional Details

The IAB has reviewed the discussion and decisions taken regarding draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv during IESG review and IETF Last Call. Technical concerns raised by the appellant were addressed (as described by RFC 7282, Section 3) by the responsible Area Director, other Area Directors, and other participants in the IETF. There was no other notable support for the appellant’s position during this process. In particular, many of these concerns had been raised and addressed during prior discussions of the document in the LSR working group. IETF consensus was called in line with BCP9 (and RFC 7282).

The appellant requested a set of actions (numbered 1-4 in the appeal) for the IAB to take. The scope of the IAB’s response to appeals is defined by BCP9 (specifically, RFC 2026, Section 6.5.2):

If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be
annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG
decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the IESG,
or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not,
however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which
only the IESG is empowered to make.

Based on the conclusion that the IESG fulfilled its role correctly, and that the requested actions are outside the scope of an IAB appeal, the IAB therefore will not take further action on these points.