From: Leslie Daigle
To: Jefsey Morfin
Cc: iab; iesg

Mr. Morfin,

In considering your appeal of 8/24/2006, the IAB focused on it as a complaint against the formal
decision of the IESG to expedite a set of documents. We noted that you had not appealed that
specific decision to the IESG, and therefore we could not proceed further in evaluating that as an appeal.

As we now understand you were focusing your complaint as an appeal against the operational action
of the IESG to consider expediting the documents at all, we have reconsidered your appeal. Without
deciding the question of whether decisions to consider actions–rather than actions themselves–are
appealable, we have reviewed the IESG’s actions in this matter.

S 3.2.2.3 (Responding to Request for Action) of RFC 4053 reads (in part):

There is, of course, no requirement that IETF perform the action that
was requested. But the request should always be taken seriously, and
a response is required. The originating organization must always be
informed of what, if anything, the IETF has decided to do in response
to the request. If the IETF decides not to honor the request, or to
honor it with modifications, the response should include the reasons
and, if applicable, the alternate course of action.

We therefore conclude that the IESG acted correctly in considering the request to expedite the
publication of these documents. The IESG’s action is sustained and the appeal is denied.

Leslie,
for the IAB.