> On 2010-03-11 13:09, David Kessens wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:42:12PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> >> The prudent action is to return it to the appellant, stating that it
> >> cannot be processed until it has been made clear and concise.
> >
> > I fully support such an approach (and did propose the same strategy to the
> > IESG while I was a member of the IESG myself).
> I agree. Our process may be complicated, but a deviation from due process
> that requires 145 pages of description is simply not possible. We have
> specific rules in RFC 2026 and RFC 2418 (and various updates) and it should
> be possible to describe specific alleged deviations from those rules in a
> page or two. If the appeal merely reflects the fact that the appellant
> disagrees with the WG consensus, that is not a ground for appeal.
> I do not believe the IESG is under any obligation to spend its precious
> time digesting such a mass of text to discern any actual grounds for
> appeal.
+1
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
