"This isn't really a chartering issue, IMHO."
I must strongly disagree here Brian - irrespective of any details of
implementation, the level of independence and discretion granted to the RFC
Editor to edit and publish documents that are not the outcome of the IETF's
peer review process is, I believe, a central matter in any version of an
RFC Editor Charter.
regards,
Geoff
At 02:00 AM 31/05/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Look at draft-ietf-newtrk-docid-00.txt
This isn't really a chartering issue, IMHO.
Brian
Stewart Bryant wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/26/06, Geoff Huston <gih(_at_)apnic(_dot_)net> wrote:
Delving down a bit here, I suspect that, as always, the longstanding issue
here is the actual level of 'independence" of the RFC Editor, and the
potential for a player to perform an end run around the IETF Internet
Standards Process
The problem with such documents is that their final designation does
not indicate the degree of consensus they enjoy.
I suggest replacing the Experimental and Informational designations
with "Non-Standard", and requiring that any non-WG product (including
submissions to AD) start at this level. That approach shouldn't bother
anyone truly interested in establishing a stable reference, but it
would require the IETF to lessen WG rampup effort.
There IS certainly a case for some better way of differentiating between
the various types of RFC so that there is no misrepresentation to, or
misinterpretation by, the end user.
Perhaps we should add an indicator in the numbering scheme to call
this out, something like; RFC==consensus/std, iRFC==informational,
xRFC==independant, vRFC==vendor-spec etc etc.
- Stewart
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf