Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents
As you know, I favor moving in this general direction. Three
comments on specifics:
(1) The "standard IESG note" discussed in section 4 seems
tailored to documents that specify protocols or operational
procedures and, for that purpose, the notes suggested seem
plausible. However, a some proportion of the independent
submission documents submitted to the RFC Editor are of the
nature of commentary, without proposing an Internet protocol or
the equivalent. A somewhat toned-down version of the note might
be appropriate for that purpose.
(2) We have, for many years, provided for the publication of the
work of other standards bodies or groups for the convenience of
the IETF community. For that case, the "standard IESG note" may
not be quite right and might actually be taken as insulting to
the other group. Instead, some statement noting that the
document is a document of group X, was published with their
permission (or at their request), and that publication is for
the convenience of the Internet (or IETF) community but does not
constitute endorsement or approval by the IETF would seem to me
to be quite sufficient.
(3) The traditional exception for April 1 RFCs should probably
be reflected in this document. This could most easily be
accomplished, IMO, by modifying the first paragraph of section 3
to indicate that the IESG and RFC Editor (or the IAB and RFC
Editor, see immediately below) may agree on classes of documents
that are not subject to this review.
(4) The document ignores the traditional path of a document from
the IAB to the RFC Editor, in which IESG review has been treated
as an optional courtesy, not a requirement. It is also not
clear that the IESG should request or recommend the rather
strongly-worded disclaimers of section 4 for IAB documents. In
any event, it is not, IMO, within the authority of the IESG to
change the relationship between the RFC Editor and IAB. This
could, of course, be subsumed under the "classes of documents"
exception proposed above if the agreement involved the IAB and
--On Friday, 26 March, 2004 06:51 -0800 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
The IESG has proposed a change in its present review
procedures for IESG review of documents submitted directly to
the RFC Editor for publication.
The IESG will be discussing this in detail, and with the RFC
Editor, next week - the input document for that discussion is
published as an I-D below
Your input is welcome!
Copy of the announcement below.
(note - between solutions, icar, poised and the IETF list, I
chose the IETF list - I will post notes to the 3 other lists
saying that I've asked for discussion of this on the IETF
list.... judgment call).