Glen Zorn <gwz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) [mailto:jsalowey@xxxxxxxxx] writes:
>> I object to this document being published as a Proposed Standard. When
>> this document was discussed in the EMU meeting at IETF-71 there was
>> much concern raised with respect to existing IPR...
> IMHO, this question is orthogonal (& largely immaterial) to the one at hand.
> It's one thing for the IETF to reach consensus that the draft be
> Informational; it is a completely different thing for the publication path
> to be changed without either notification of (other than the Last Call
> announcement itself) or consultation with the authors.
Lack of consultation with the authors would be unfortunate.
> If this was _not_ a simple error, then the action was arbitrary &
> capricious, not to mentioned underhanded & must certainly be considered
> as grounds for dismissal of the (as yet unnamed) person or persons
I do not agree. At most, an apology might be required.
> unless the IETF has recently converted to an authoritarian regime.
There is nothing "recent" about this. To be considered by the IESG,
there must be a sponsoring Area Director for any Individual Submission.
That Area Director has always had full authority to decide whether to
LastCall as Informational or Proposed Standard.
> As an aside, it seems that draft-green-secsh-ecc has suffered the same
> fate, suggesting that this is neither an error nor an isolated occurrence.
(You technically have the right to appeal the decision to LastCall as
Informational; but the Area Director will always have the right to
decline to sponsor publication as Proposed Standard.)
The difference may not be as great as you seem to think. Appeal if
you must, but it's really not unusual to change "proposed status" as
a result of LastCall comments. It might be more helpful to simply post
(polite) LastCall comments of your own about why "Proposed Standard"
would be more appropriate than "Informational".
John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>
Ietf mailing list