Re: List moderator action
Jay Daley <[email protected]> Wed, 6 May 2026 10:42:43 +1200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> On 6 May 2026, at 04:58, Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 1:25 AM Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Where does it follow from https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/ that >> IESG statements override BCP9, BCP78 etc? >> >> I can't find the term 'IESG statement' in any of BCP9, BCP78 etc >> documents. > > Hi, > > Yes, this is my point, even though I agree with the IESG statement. > > That means we need Brad Biddle or equivalent to fix this one. What a mess. No we don’t. Despite the multiple claims by armchair lawyers, there is no legal issue, risk or confusion here, just an ordinary disagreement of interpretation. People will always disagree with the interpretation of a document but in the IETF, the interpretation of the IESG (subject to the appeals process) is final. Just because someone disagrees with them doesn't mean there’s any form of structural failure, imminent legal threat, etc. Jay -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director [email protected]