Skip to main content

Appeal re draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt (Patrick Masotta; 2013-11-14) - 2013-11-14
Response - 2014-01-27

IESG Response to Patrick Masotta on the Appeal re draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt

27 January 2014

Patrick Masotta has appealed the IESG's failure to publish the document draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt, through a combination of a "Do Not Publish" recommendation to the Independent Stream Editor during its RFC 5742 review of the draft, and not bringing the document to Last Call during AD-sponsorship of the document. The full appeal is available here:


During the RFC 5742 review of draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt, the IESG determined that the document extended an IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review. Martin Stiemerling (TSV AD) volunteered to shepherd the document through the IETF process since the primary concern raised against the document was its lack of congestion control capabilities, and Mr Stiemerling and Mr Masotta began discussion on those issues. After a few exchanges, the discussion broke down and did not complete. The IESG believes Mr Masotta is appealing the "Do Not Publish" decision and the failure to bring the document to Last Call based on his belief that:

  1. the Transport Area Directors had a conflict of interest due to their private jobs
  2. a lapse in the ethics of the TSV ADs led to an inadequate review of his draft.

The IESG believes this appeal falls under section 6.5.2 of RFC 2026 since it relates to a process responsiblity of the IESG (RFC 5742 conflict review of Independent Stream documents).

In evaluating this appeal, the IESG reviewed all e-mail exchanges between Mr Masotta and the TSV & APPs ADs to determine if any indication of an ethical lapse occurred during the RFC 5742 review process. Additionally, the IESG reviewed the corporate website for Wesley Eddy's employer since Mr Masotta claimed that Mr Eddy's employer is selling his services as an IESG member <>.


The IESG's evaluation did not find any conflict of interest related to this document, nor any actions on the part of the TSV ADs that the IESG could consider indicative of such a conflict. The IESG did not find any indication that the "Do Not Publish" decision it made for this document was unduly or improperly influenced by the TSV ADs. Additionally, while the MTI Systems website does indicate a willingness to participate in the development of protocols in standards bodies (particularly noting the IETF), including taking on leadership roles, it does not imply any type of preferential treatment for customers looking to work within the IETF, and the IESG therefore did not find this statement to be problematic.

The IESG did not find any indication of unethical behavior by the TSV ADs. There has been no indication that the involved ADs have attempted to push forth a competing draft. In fact, Mr Stiemerling's willingness to shepherd the draft through the IETF process indicates an interest in helping Mr Masotta with the IETF publishing process. The discussion appears to have broken down due to disagreement as to the validity of the issues Mr Stiemerling raised, and the IESG does not believe those issues have yet been adequately addressed in the discussion.

Given the above, the IESG finds that the proper process was followed, there was no indication of a conflict of interest, and that the TSV ADs acted ethically.

That said, the IESG notes that this appeal is not the only avenue available to Mr Masotta: another AD, outside the TSV area, may be willing to sponsor the draft, and the IESG encourages Mr Masotta to make another attempt to resolve the open issues, move the document through the IETF process, and get the document published.