At 02:48 PM 6/9/2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
Mike,
Are you suggesting that the ISOC pull RFC Editor funding and invest in
another series where the community has more say? Otherwise one person
can override the will of the community, as Jon did on more than one
occasion. I don't think we want that any more. I certainly don't.
No we don't want that, but we also don't want RFC Editor as directly
part IETF structure or answerable to it for everything it does.
I think there is a middle ground that can exist - a contract between
IAOC representing IETF and ISI representing RFC Editor where RFC
Editor agrees to publish documents submitted to it by IETF (i.e. they'll not
be able to say no to IETF request to publish document even if RFC
Editor believes its not ready) and for that RFC Editor receives a funding for
its operations (which includes ability to publish documents that did
not go through IETF process).
Such contract can in itself be considered as describing RFC Editor
operations as they relate to IETF and be published as an RFC. But it
would not be an exclusive description of all that RFC Editor does.
And this is exactly what I believed to be the current relationship
between the RFC editor and the IETF/IAB/ISOC. Apparently, the small
amount of editorial oversight the RFC editor is currently placing on
the Internet Standards series is perceived as too much by some.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf