Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Script updating gh-pages from 9de65af. [ci skip]
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
ID Bot committed Jul 24, 2023
1 parent e8167c2 commit 9b61133
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Showing 3 changed files with 94 additions and 20 deletions.
46 changes: 33 additions & 13 deletions draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria.html
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1175,16 +1175,19 @@ <h2 id="name-copyright-notice">
</ul>
</li>
<li class="compact toc ulBare ulEmpty" id="section-toc.1-1.4">
<p id="section-toc.1-1.4.1"><a href="#section-4" class="auto internal xref">4</a>.  <a href="#name-iana-considerations" class="internal xref">IANA Considerations</a></p>
<p id="section-toc.1-1.4.1"><a href="#section-4" class="auto internal xref">4</a>.  <a href="#name-discuss-resolution" class="internal xref">DISCUSS Resolution</a></p>
</li>
<li class="compact toc ulBare ulEmpty" id="section-toc.1-1.5">
<p id="section-toc.1-1.5.1"><a href="#section-5" class="auto internal xref">5</a>.  <a href="#name-security-considerations" class="internal xref">Security Considerations</a></p>
<p id="section-toc.1-1.5.1"><a href="#section-5" class="auto internal xref">5</a>.  <a href="#name-iana-considerations" class="internal xref">IANA Considerations</a></p>
</li>
<li class="compact toc ulBare ulEmpty" id="section-toc.1-1.6">
<p id="section-toc.1-1.6.1"><a href="#section-6" class="auto internal xref">6</a>.  <a href="#name-informative-references" class="internal xref">Informative References</a></p>
<p id="section-toc.1-1.6.1"><a href="#section-6" class="auto internal xref">6</a>.  <a href="#name-security-considerations" class="internal xref">Security Considerations</a></p>
</li>
<li class="compact toc ulBare ulEmpty" id="section-toc.1-1.7">
<p id="section-toc.1-1.7.1"><a href="#appendix-A" class="auto internal xref"></a><a href="#name-authors-address" class="internal xref">Author's Address</a></p>
<p id="section-toc.1-1.7.1"><a href="#section-7" class="auto internal xref">7</a>.  <a href="#name-informative-references" class="internal xref">Informative References</a></p>
</li>
<li class="compact toc ulBare ulEmpty" id="section-toc.1-1.8">
<p id="section-toc.1-1.8.1"><a href="#appendix-A" class="auto internal xref"></a><a href="#name-authors-address" class="internal xref">Author's Address</a></p>
</li>
</ul>
</nav>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1317,35 +1320,52 @@ <h3 id="name-saying-no-to-a-document">
</div>
</section>
</div>
<div id="iana-considerations">
<div id="discuss-resolution">
<section id="section-4">
<h2 id="name-discuss-resolution">
<a href="#section-4" class="section-number selfRef">4. </a><a href="#name-discuss-resolution" class="section-name selfRef">DISCUSS Resolution</a>
</h2>
<p id="section-4-1">The traditional method of DISCUSS resolution is the initiation of a discussion about the issues in question. This discussion may include only the IESG, particularly if the DISCUSS is resolved quickly during or following the IESG agenda when the document is presented. Usually the discussion extends to document editors and working group chairs, and entire working groups, as necessary. Increasingly, one of the working group chairs may coordinate the resolution of the DISCUSS (see <span>[<a href="#RFC4858" class="cite xref">RFC4858</a>]</span>).<a href="#section-4-1" class="pilcrow"></a></p>
<p id="section-4-2">As the conclusion of this discussion, revisions to the document may or may not be required. If revisions are required, it is customary for the Area Director to clear their DISCUSS only when the revision containing the necessary emendations has been published in the Internet-Drafts repository.<a href="#section-4-2" class="pilcrow"></a></p>
<p id="section-4-3">While in many cases, DISCUSSes are resolved expeditiously, there are common cases where a DISCUSS can take weeks or months to resolve, given that revisions are frequently required, and such revisions need to be checked by the AD that issued the DISCUSS. Accordingly, DISCUSSes should be used sparingly.<a href="#section-4-3" class="pilcrow"></a></p>
<p id="section-4-4">If a DISCUSS cannot be resolved by the working group, and the AD continues to hold his or her DISCUSS, the IESG has an alternative balloting procedure that can be used to override a single discuss position. In the alternative procedure, all ADs are required to enter a "yes" or "no" position on the document. A document will be published if two-thirds of the IESG state a position of "yes", and no more than two ADs state a "no" position. Two-thirds of the IESG is formally defined as two-thirds of the sitting ADs (current 9), except for those who are recused from voting on the document in question, rounded up to the next whole number. If three or more ADs hold a "no" position on a document using the alternative balloting procedure, or if a document fails to gather the required number of "yes" positions, the document will be returned to the WG with a "no" answer, which is one of the options described in RFC 2026.<a href="#section-4-4" class="pilcrow"></a></p>
<p id="section-4-5">When an AD is replaced for any reason, the successor should promptly evaluate DISCUSS ballots left by his or her predecessor, and either re-assert them, if they still meet the criteria of Section 3.1, or register "No Objection" if they do not. The successor AD is responsible for handling such DISCUSS ballots just as if they were his or her own.<a href="#section-4-5" class="pilcrow"></a></p>
<p id="section-4-6">The criteria provided in this document are intended to help the IESG to restrict the usage of a DISCUSS to cases where it is necessary.<a href="#section-4-6" class="pilcrow"></a></p>
</section>
</div>
<div id="iana-considerations">
<section id="section-5">
<h2 id="name-iana-considerations">
<a href="#section-4" class="section-number selfRef">4. </a><a href="#name-iana-considerations" class="section-name selfRef">IANA Considerations</a>
<a href="#section-5" class="section-number selfRef">5. </a><a href="#name-iana-considerations" class="section-name selfRef">IANA Considerations</a>
</h2>
<p id="section-4-1">This document contains no considerations for the IANA.<a href="#section-4-1" class="pilcrow"></a></p>
<p id="section-5-1">This document contains no considerations for the IANA.<a href="#section-5-1" class="pilcrow"></a></p>
</section>
</div>
<div id="security-considerations">
<section id="section-5">
<section id="section-6">
<h2 id="name-security-considerations">
<a href="#section-5" class="section-number selfRef">5. </a><a href="#name-security-considerations" class="section-name selfRef">Security Considerations</a>
<a href="#section-6" class="section-number selfRef">6. </a><a href="#name-security-considerations" class="section-name selfRef">Security Considerations</a>
</h2>
<p id="section-5-1">This is a procedural document without security implications. However, the ability of the IESG to review the security properties of the submitted protocol specifications, point out and help resolve security flaws in them is vital for Internet security.<a href="#section-5-1" class="pilcrow"></a></p>
<p id="section-6-1">This is a procedural document without security implications. However, the ability of the IESG to review the security properties of the submitted protocol specifications, point out and help resolve security flaws in them is vital for Internet security.<a href="#section-6-1" class="pilcrow"></a></p>
</section>
</div>
<section id="section-6">
<section id="section-7">
<h2 id="name-informative-references">
<a href="#section-6" class="section-number selfRef">6. </a><a href="#name-informative-references" class="section-name selfRef">Informative References</a>
<a href="#section-7" class="section-number selfRef">7. </a><a href="#name-informative-references" class="section-name selfRef">Informative References</a>
</h2>
<dl class="references">
<dt id="RFC1958">[RFC1958]</dt>
<dd>
<span class="refAuthor">Carpenter, B., Ed.</span>, <span class="refTitle">"Architectural Principles of the Internet"</span>, <span class="seriesInfo">RFC 1958</span>, <span class="seriesInfo">DOI 10.17487/RFC1958</span>, <time datetime="1996-06" class="refDate">June 1996</time>, <span>&lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1958">https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1958</a>&gt;</span>. </dd>
<dd class="break"></dd>
<dt id="RFC3424">[RFC3424]</dt>
<dd>
<dd>
<span class="refAuthor">Daigle, L., Ed.</span> and <span class="refAuthor">IAB</span>, <span class="refTitle">"IAB Considerations for UNilateral Self-Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address Translation"</span>, <span class="seriesInfo">RFC 3424</span>, <span class="seriesInfo">DOI 10.17487/RFC3424</span>, <time datetime="2002-11" class="refDate">November 2002</time>, <span>&lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3424">https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3424</a>&gt;</span>. </dd>
<dd class="break"></dd>
<dt id="RFC4858">[RFC4858]</dt>
<dd>
<span class="refAuthor">Levkowetz, H.</span>, <span class="refAuthor">Meyer, D.</span>, <span class="refAuthor">Eggert, L.</span>, and <span class="refAuthor">A. Mankin</span>, <span class="refTitle">"Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to Publication"</span>, <span class="seriesInfo">RFC 4858</span>, <span class="seriesInfo">DOI 10.17487/RFC4858</span>, <time datetime="2007-05" class="refDate">May 2007</time>, <span>&lt;<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858">https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858</a>&gt;</span>. </dd>
<dd class="break"></dd>
</dl>
</section>
<div id="authors-addresses">
Expand Down
66 changes: 60 additions & 6 deletions draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria.txt
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -89,9 +89,10 @@ Table of Contents
3.1. DISCUSS Criteria
3.2. DISCUSS Non-Criteria
3.3. Saying No to A Document
4. IANA Considerations
5. Security Considerations
6. Informative References
4. DISCUSS Resolution
5. IANA Considerations
6. Security Considerations
7. Informative References
Author's Address

1. Introduction
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -329,18 +330,66 @@ Table of Contents
the responsible AD should work with both the WG and the AD holding
the DISCUSS to see of a mutually agreeable path can be found.

4. IANA Considerations
4. DISCUSS Resolution

The traditional method of DISCUSS resolution is the initiation of a
discussion about the issues in question. This discussion may include
only the IESG, particularly if the DISCUSS is resolved quickly during
or following the IESG agenda when the document is presented. Usually
the discussion extends to document editors and working group chairs,
and entire working groups, as necessary. Increasingly, one of the
working group chairs may coordinate the resolution of the DISCUSS
(see [RFC4858]).

As the conclusion of this discussion, revisions to the document may
or may not be required. If revisions are required, it is customary
for the Area Director to clear their DISCUSS only when the revision
containing the necessary emendations has been published in the
Internet-Drafts repository.

While in many cases, DISCUSSes are resolved expeditiously, there are
common cases where a DISCUSS can take weeks or months to resolve,
given that revisions are frequently required, and such revisions need
to be checked by the AD that issued the DISCUSS. Accordingly,
DISCUSSes should be used sparingly.

If a DISCUSS cannot be resolved by the working group, and the AD
continues to hold his or her DISCUSS, the IESG has an alternative
balloting procedure that can be used to override a single discuss
position. In the alternative procedure, all ADs are required to
enter a "yes" or "no" position on the document. A document will be
published if two-thirds of the IESG state a position of "yes", and no
more than two ADs state a "no" position. Two-thirds of the IESG is
formally defined as two-thirds of the sitting ADs (current 9), except
for those who are recused from voting on the document in question,
rounded up to the next whole number. If three or more ADs hold a
"no" position on a document using the alternative balloting
procedure, or if a document fails to gather the required number of
"yes" positions, the document will be returned to the WG with a "no"
answer, which is one of the options described in RFC 2026.

When an AD is replaced for any reason, the successor should promptly
evaluate DISCUSS ballots left by his or her predecessor, and either
re-assert them, if they still meet the criteria of Section 3.1, or
register "No Objection" if they do not. The successor AD is
responsible for handling such DISCUSS ballots just as if they were
his or her own.

The criteria provided in this document are intended to help the IESG
to restrict the usage of a DISCUSS to cases where it is necessary.

5. IANA Considerations

This document contains no considerations for the IANA.

5. Security Considerations
6. Security Considerations

This is a procedural document without security implications.
However, the ability of the IESG to review the security properties of
the submitted protocol specifications, point out and help resolve
security flaws in them is vital for Internet security.

6. Informative References
7. Informative References

[RFC1958] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996,
Expand All @@ -351,6 +400,11 @@ Table of Contents
Address Translation", RFC 3424, DOI 10.17487/RFC3424,
November 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3424>.

[RFC4858] Levkowetz, H., Meyer, D., Eggert, L., and A. Mankin,
"Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call to
Publication", RFC 4858, DOI 10.17487/RFC4858, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858>.

Author's Address

Mark Nottingham
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion index.md
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ View [saved issues](issues.html), or the latest GitHub [issues](https://github.c
| [HTTP Availability Hints](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-http-availability-hints.html "HTTP Availability Hints (HTML)") | [plain text](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-http-availability-hints.txt "HTTP Availability Hints (Text)") | same as main |
| [An HTTP Cache Invalidation API](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-http-invalidation.html "An HTTP Cache Invalidation API (HTML)") | [plain text](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-http-invalidation.txt "An HTTP Cache Invalidation API (Text)") | same as main |
| [Binary Structured HTTP Field Values](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-binary-structured-headers.html "Binary Structured HTTP Field Values (HTML)") | [plain text](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-binary-structured-headers.txt "Binary Structured HTTP Field Values (Text)") | same as main |
| [DISCUSS Criteria](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria.html "DISCUSS Criteria (HTML)") | [plain text](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria.txt "DISCUSS Criteria (Text)") | same as main |
| [DISCUSS Criteria](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria.html "DISCUSS Criteria (HTML)") | [plain text](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria.txt "DISCUSS Criteria (Text)") | [diff with main](https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?url_1=https://mnot.github.io/I-D/draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria.txt&url_2=https://mnot.github.io/I-D/draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria.txt) |
| [Blocking by IP Address](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-blocking-best-practices.html "Best Practices for Blocking Clients by IP Address (HTML)") | [plain text](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-blocking-best-practices.txt "Best Practices for Blocking Clients by IP Address (Text)") | same as main |
| [Community Registrations](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-mediaman-standards-tree.html "Allowing Community Registrations in the Standards Tree (HTML)") | [plain text](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-mediaman-standards-tree.txt "Allowing Community Registrations in the Standards Tree (Text)") | same as main |
| [HTTP Link Hints](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-link-hint.html "HTTP Link Hints (HTML)") | [plain text](draft-nottingham-gendispatch-discuss-criteria-00/draft-nottingham-link-hint.txt "HTTP Link Hints (Text)") | same as main |
Expand Down

0 comments on commit 9b61133

Please sign in to comment.