Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents

Keith Moore wrote:

> Okay, I read draft-iesg-rfced-documents-00.txt regarding a proposed 
> change in IESG policy regarding RFC-Ed documents.
> I'm opposed to the change, because I believe it would make it too easy 
> for harmful documents to be published as RFCs.
As someone who has been waiting over a year to publish an informational 
RFC, I could not disagree more.
The RFC-Editor (disclaimer - also at ISI) has sufficient authority to 
reject submissions which are either 'clearly bogus' or do not cross the 
hurdle from marketing blurb to protocol spec.
...
> A big part of the problem is that the proposed policy would only allow 
> IESG to object to the publication of a document in the case where there 
> was an active working group in an area, or where the document would 
> violate a pre-established procedure. 
To the extent that the IESG has done otherwise in the past, IMO it has 
violated its authority. I appreciate that the IESG has 'voted' to do 
otherwise, but I don't recall how it ever got the authority to act as 
TPC for individual submissions in the first place.
...
>  Since working groups are 
> typically chartered to work on a narrow topic and for a limited time, at 
> any given time many technical subject areas are not covered by a working 
> group, and many new protocols would not conflict with any particular 
> working group even if they would conflict with (for instance) the 
> operation of established protocols.
Alternatively - speaking from experience - new protocols or techinques 
could be developed and circulate ad-infinitum among the churn of 
emerging WGs, in a continuing effort to avoid perceived potential overlap.
> -In order to be considered worthy of review, any individual submission
> must first have the support of two (maybe three) members of the group
> consisting of all current IESG members,all current IAB members,and all
> current WG chairs.

Sometimes these docs are 'reviewed' by 'informed' ADs who request WG 
review - of a WG to whom the document _has already been repeatedly 
presented_. Asking for the consensus of any UNANIMOUS snapshot of IESG, 
IAB, and WG chairs would certainly cut down on the published RFCs. We 
might end up with none.
These proposals further don't consider the historical value of minority 
opinions or alternative approaches. Those docs won't ever be published 
if unanimous consent is required.
IMO, the IESG already has a series over which it has complete editorial 
control - standards track. Leave something for the rest of the Internet 
community, please.
Joe

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature