On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Joe Touch wrote:
Not Sec 4.2.3 for individual submissions; that one talks about checking
for conflict, not editing for content.
Have you taken a look at RFC 3922 ("The IESG and RFC Editor Documents:
Procedures")? While these were previously also dutily reviewed for
individual RFC-editor submissions, they are no longer. The IESG just
produces a note to the RFC editor, and records its comments to the
tracker (if any) -- in the interest of bringing up issues in the spec
-- and it's then up to the RFC editor to check whether a revision (and
what kind) is needed or not, as long as the IESG disclaimer is
Ditto for Sec 6.1.1-6.1.2, which talks about checking for consistency
and clarity, but not editing for other reasons.
It also says, "technical quality".
Were they to put their objections forth as individuals, it would be
necessary to recuse themselves from the process of conflict resolution,
because they have a vested interest in the outcome.
If someone appeals the decision (this has happened), and it reaches
the full IESG, the AD whose action is being appealed will recuse
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Ietf mailing list