--On 26. mars 2004 21:59 -0500 Scott Bradner <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu> wrote:
I do worry about the "harm to the Internet" case (e.g., a protocol which
will be used to transport large amounts of data but does not have any
congestion control ability) but I'm satisfied with the process described
in this ID to bring any such issue to the attention of the RFC Editor and
rely on the RFC Editor to do the right thing as long as the RFC Editor
maintains the model of today (an independent technically competent
group). If that model changes this process might have to be reevaluated
as long as the RFC Editor contunues to have s part of its mission to
publish non-IETF documents (as I strongly think it should).
I think we might want to begin thinking of these two functions (technical
review and copy-editing) as two different functions, which are "joined at
the hip" currently, but aren't necessarily so joined forever.....
nit: I do not think that RFC 2418 sec 8 has anything to do with the topic
of RFC Editor documents and I think that reference should be removed from
this document.
not sure - 2418 sec 8 sentence 1 says "The IESG reviews all documents
submitted for publication as RFCs". It might be intended as a shorthand for
"all documents submitted by WGs for publication as RFCs" - but I knew that
at the time of publication, all documents, including RFC Editor submissions
and "individual submitted via AD", went through IESG review, so I thought
it might mean what it said rather than what its context may seem to
indicate...
Note: The changed IESG review of RFC Editor documents does NOT change the
IESG review for individual submissions to the standards track or individual
submission sponsored by an AD. These get full IESG technical review, as
before.
I think this is a good retro-move.
Seems good!