No Allison - contracts are not what happens when people deal in bad faith -
court battles are. Contracts are what happen when two or more parties want
the formal relationship between them defined and their roles and
responsibilities too.
More inline
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allison Mankin" <mankin(_at_)psg(_dot_)com>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>; "Leslie Daigle"
<leslie(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com>
Cc: "IETF Administrative Director" <iad(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
<iaoc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "Ted Hardie" <hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>;
"John C Klensin"
<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [IAOC] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request
As was said, that is still an open discussion, so I don't think we
can specify it today.
I now see from the further discussion what some fault-lines are.
My concern is that "Edit and publish as for IETF community documents"
leaves open to the RFC Editor considerable latitude for how the
independent
submissions appear in the broad community, for instance do they mimic
standards documents? Truth in advertising may need enforcement despite
best intentions. Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote well that:
However, contracts are about what happens when someone you thought
would act in good faith fails to do so.
Or perhaps, they are acting in good faith, but they are not effective -
who's to remedy if there's a problem by the editor and the authors slip
in specific effects [this could apply to the non-IETF streams in their own
ways too]. Effective delineations are needed.
In proposing the text above, I did not envision that IESG should
control the issue - IAB has the purview for RFC Editor, as stated
in RFC 2850 and other sources. But I didn't think till Leslie's mail
about IAB taking off their IETF hats so much when dealing with RFC Editor
matters (having both non-IETF hats and IETF hats, as I read it).
My main object is for the RFP to say to a prospective RFC Editor that
the delineation of the independent submission series will be under the
contract holder's management in some way, allowing input from the editor.
This is a very bad idea since it doesnt define those requirements - and no
one in their right mind would enter into a contract with the terms as
nebulous as this.
I want to urge this just because the RFC series is shared by four
streams. In justifying this before, I've talked mainly about the IETF
stream because it is the one I know the best, but I could also detail
taking this care for the others. Anyway, here's a revised proposal
for the text:
NEW NEW:
1) Edit and publish with the same steps as IETF community
documents but with clear indications that these belong to
an independent series. Specifics of these indications will
be developed and authorized by an appropriate party to
be determined, with input from the RFC Editor.
[More explication: the authorizing party is TBD, but it is not specified
as "IETF community"; the RFC Editor gives input rather than being
self-defining.]
Allison
_______________________________________________
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