Michael StJohns wrote:
...
In the doc "
It is the responsibility of the IAB to approve the appointment of an
organization to act as RFC Editor and the general policy followed by
the RFC Editor."
This is incorrect.
Mike, in absolute seriousness, the time to make that comment was
in 1999/2000 when the draft that became RFC 2850 was under consideration,
because that is the authority for this text. [Truth in advertising:
I was the editor of RFC 2850.]
It was expanded from earlier text in RFC 1601 (published in 1994):
The IAB is responsible for editorial management and publication of
the Request for Comments (RFC) document series...
which was modified from RFC 1358 (published in 1992):
[IAB] responsibilities shall include:
...
(2) The editorial management and publication of the Request for
Comments (RFC) document series, which constitutes the
archival publication series for Internet Standards and
related contributions by the Internet research and
engineering community.
I am very puzzled by how you believe that the RFC Editor can be made
answerable to the community otherwise. I would object most strongly
to any notion that the RFC Editor's authority should be self-perpetuating.
I would also object to erecting a new bureaucracy for community oversight,
given that the IAB exists and is put in place by (and can be ejected by)
a community process.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf