Todd Glassey wrote:
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.
TThere are changes that do not affect IP - notably most corrections to
tense, spelling, punctuation, etc. There are changes that might affect
IP - those that involve unclear specification (a field with 8 values,
only 5 of which are described), etc. It's useful to catch these - though
the author determines how best to handle them.
I.e., the Editors don't change things, they raise questions or suggest
changes. The author and/or IESG (depending on suggested change) would
obviously have last say.
And the 'standards process' issue applies only to standards-track; there
are other docs (Informational, BCP, Experimental) that are handled as well.
Joe
-----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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf