Skip to main content

Appeal Against IESG Decisions Regarding the draft-ietf-ltru-matching (PDF file) (JFC Morfin; 2006-08-16) - 2006-08-16
Response - 2006-08-22

* To: JFC Morfin 
* Subject: Response to Part 1 of the appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-08-17
* Date: 22 August 2006

Response to Part 1 of the appeal by JFC Morfin dated 2006-08-17

This is the IESG response to Part 1 of the appeal by JFC Morfin
sent on 2006-08-17 and posted at

This was considered during the IESG teleconference
on the same date. Part 1 of the appeal is summarized as:

"Appeal against the decision to consider a request to the RFC Editor
to expedite the publication of draft-ietf-ltru-registry,
draft-ietf-ltru-matching and draft-ietf-ltru-initial"

followed by various arguments.

As discussed in the July 10 response to the appeal from Dean Anderson
against draft-ietf-grow-anycast, the appeals process is designed to
handle disputes that cannot be handled through other means. The IESG
cannot come up with a situation where it would be appropriate to
appeal the consideration of some action before a decision is made;
this is certainly not such a case. Instead, participants should
provide input to that consideration. We interpret this appeal in that
light: we interpret part 1 of the appeal as arguments why the IESG
should choose to delay a decision to expedite this BCP.

The IESG makes such requests regularly when another SDO's publication
schedule requires the ability to cite a forthcoming RFC normatively.
There is nothing exceptional or discriminatory about doing so in the
case of Unicode. It would not be sufficient for Unicode to refer
generically to BCP 47; the reference needs to be to specific text
and hence to the RFCs.

We note that RFC 2026 does not require appeals to have suspensive effect.
If an appeal against the approval of a published RFC were to succeed,
that RFC could be reclassified as Historic.

We find no merit in the arguments in Part 1 of the appeal, which is

[The response to Part 2 of the appeal will be published later.]