Pete,
I thought I was describing the status quo and what is currently
happening. Unless the IAB has handed off that responsibility
to the IESG in the last two years (in which case the community
wasn't told), the IESG's having any discussion at all with the
RFC Editor about an IAB document -- what is in that category,
how they are handled, etc.-- is because the IAB asks for that
discussion. It presumably also occurs in a three-way
environment, even if the IAB decides to be silent about
particular aspects of the conversation.
john
--On Monday, May 10, 2004 10:27 AM -0500 Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 5/10/04 at 10:54 AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, May 10, 2004 9:33 AM -0400 Scott Bradner
<sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu> wrote:
looks good to me - one suggestion of clearer language and a
potential addition
o Documents for which special rules exist, including IAB
documents and April 1st RFCs, and republication of
documents from other SDOs - the IESG and the RFC Editor
keep a running dialogue on which documents these are
awkward wording - maybe you want to say
o The IESG and the RFC Editor keep a running dialogue on
which documents require special rules (for example, IAB
documents, April 1st RFCs, and republication of documents
from other SDOs)
Scott, while I agree that the current language is not
optimal, I don't think the above is the right fix. The
whole point of the agreements about publication of IAB
documents is that the RFC Editor reports, from an overall
policy and strategy standpoint, with the IAB. Turning that
situation into "the IESG and the RFC Editor keep a running
dialogue" rather dramatically revises (or confuses) that
situation.
John, the paragraph which Scott aims to fix is in the section
which describes "what is currently happening". And, indeed, I
believe it is true that the current state of affairs is that
the IESG and the RFC Editor *do* keep a running dialogue about
out-of-the-ordinary documents which may or may not need IESG
review (where republication of certain SDO documents do --
because of liaison agreements -- and April 1st RFCs do not, as
far as I know).
Perhaps this would be better stated as:
o The IESG and the RFC Editor keep a running dialogue on
which documents require special rules (for example, IAB
informational documents and April 1st RFCs never require IESG
review, whereas certain republication of documents from other
SDOs do because of liaison agreements)
(assuming that captures what Harald, and Scott, intended in
their attempts).
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf