On Fri, 7 May 2004, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering Group
to consider the following document:
- 'The IESG and RFC Editor documents: Procedures '
<draft-iesg-rfced-documents-01.txt> as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org or ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by
2004-06-04.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-rfced-documents-01.txt
A good document. Go for it. A few minor comments below.
The only thing I felt a bit fuzzy about was the statement:
The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the
fitness of this RFC for any purpose, and in particular notes that
it has not had IETF review for such things as security,
congestion control or inappropriate interaction with deployed
protocols.
==> now that we get down to talking about enumerating the important topics
that are being reviewed in the documents, should this list be expanded or
shrinked appropriately? I'm fine with as it is, but I have a feeling that
those 3 items are not representative of the IETF review, and if we list
specific review subjects, the list should probably be longer..
editorial
---------
This document gives the IESG's procedures for handling documents
submitted for RFC publication via the RFC Editor, subsequent to the
==> s/gives/describes/
RFC 3710 [3] section 5.2.2 describes the spring 2003 review process;
==> was that really spring 2003? The RFC was published in 2004.
The last two cases are included for the case where a document
attempts to do things (such as URI scheme definition) that require
==> s/URI scheme definition/to define a URI scheme/ ?
References
==> split these; 1-2 normative (or just 1), 3) to informational.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf