Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents

Harald,

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 
RFC Editor.
Nice job.
   john


--On Friday, 26 March, 2004 06:51 -0800 Harald Tveit Alvestrand 
<harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
> 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).