Joe thanks for the plumber and janitor response. My response to the same
statement would be:
The IETF's Editor's have a responsibility to NOT alter IP that is submitted to
the IETF - that can by the Standards process ONLY happen through the IETF's
Vetting process and is not the perogative of the Editors.
But there is more - If a Submitter has their IP modified by the IETF Editors
outside of the Vetting Process it constitues an adversarial action in creating
another derivative by the Editors since they were given a specific set of
properties for the particular reason of vetting those IP's - not those IP's as
modified by the Editors... that's why the Editors need an arms length from the
process.
Todd
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Touch <touch(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU>
Sent: Jul 21, 2006 9:03 AM
To: Marcus Leech <mleech(_at_)nortel(_dot_)com>
Cc: Todd Glassey <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>, Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>, IETF Administrative Director
<iad(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, IETF Announcement list <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: RFC Editor Function SOW Review
Marcus Leech wrote:
Todd Glassey wrote:
Hmmmm... The SOW MUST define all the elements of the Editor's
responsibility and all the specific tasks they perform as well as the
SLA's for those Tasks. It also MUST address the SOD (Separation of
Duties) within the Editor's work since they are altering the IP
submitted.
Without that ther is no comprehensive model for evaluating how well
the IETF met its standards and whether it caused damage to others in
the process.
Todd Glassey as an Auditor.
Methinks you've drunk too deeply of the SOX Kool-Aid, Todd. Along
what lines would you
suggest that the RFC Editor "separate its duties"?
Perhaps you would also reccommend that the guy who replaces the air
freshener blocks
in the mens bathroom not also be the same guy who fixes the plumbing?
It isn't; one is typically a janitor, the other a plumber.
Or maybe the
guy who diagnoses your automotive problems be different from the guy
who actually
fixes it? Perhaps in the RFC-Editor function, the person who fixes
missing commas
and semi-colons, should be different from the person who addresses
clarity and
normative reference issues?
Clarity and normative reference issues are often content specific. They
require knowledge of Internet protocols and their interrelationships
(even if the IESG approves the doc doesn't mean the doc is written
clearly in that regard).
General text editing is not content specific.
If you think you can find someone knowledgable enough in the Internet
who wants to burn their time fixing typos, please do. I suspect a
separation of duties will be necessary otherwise.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf