On 1 jun 2009, at 16:56, Jari Arkko wrote:
I do think though that additional information at the level of "This
RFC describes FOO. A standardized version of FOO can be found from
RFC NNNN." is useful. I think -07 version of the 3932bis is an
improvement over the previous one, and should be approved.
The proposed text would allow for these sort of suggestions to be made
to the Independent Series Editor (ISE, the approval body for the
Independent Submissions Stream). IMHO these relational notes would be
useful additions to Independent stream documents. Maybe not even as an
IESG Note but as language in the abstract and/or introduction.
However, the proposed language would also allow standard templates to
be added. That would IMHO be wrong.
I understand that for many people the distinction between the various
streams is not always clear and that a large number of folk think that
the RFC series is synonymous with Internet Standard documents, but I
do not think that the IESG Note is the magic bullet to solve that.
In any case:
RFC4846 section 5 uses the word "recommend"
If the IESG, after completing its review, identifies issues, it may
recommend explanatory or qualifying text for the RFC Editor to
include in the document if it is published.
That wording is chosen in such a way that the decision is with the RFC
Editor, more specifically the ISE. I would try to bring 3932bis in
line with that:
OLD:
The IESG may choose to add an IESG note to an Independent Submission
or IRTF Stream document that explains the specific relationship, if
any, to IETF work.
NEW:
The IESG may recommend [to the RFC Editor] to add an IESG note .....
The text in section 3 uses "request" which IMHO is in line with the
spirit of 4846. And makes clear that the ISE could in fact push back
on the recommendation or request.
--Olaf
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf