----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
To: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines (Guidance on Area
Director Sponsoring of Documents) to Informational RFC
On 2007-02-08 01:25, Frank Ellermann wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
If the IESG intends this document to merely represent the
particular procedures they intend to follow within the range of
alternatives over which they believe they have discretion, then
it should probably be published as an ION
Not publishing it at all is an alternative. It would send an
unmistakable message to wannabe-authors, that they should use the
"independent" path, unless they're a friend of a friend of an AD.
That is a complete mischaracterization. The intent in publishing
this (and doing so in parallel with draft-klensin-rfc-independent)
is to make it much clearer to authors when they should choose one
path and when they should choose another.
Brian
I agree that that should be the objective but I do not think that the four
documents (*) collectively achieve it.
The impression created, exaggerating slightly, is that WG submissions matter,
individual submissions we have to put up with and independent submissions we
would rather not mention.
There should be one document that is the starting point for those considering
the RFC and IETF processes, one that gives an even-handed treatment of the
available routes to varying outcomes, and this is not it. The nearest is
draft-klensin-rfc-independent-05.txt and that is where I would point anyone. We
may then want separate process documents helping people down their chosen path
and draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines (assuming that it is accurate, I am not
well placed to judge) would fulfil that secondary role.
Nor is this new. I have been active here for over five years (and yes I read
the website and Tao before starting) but it was only in 2005 that I realised
that 'independent' and 'individual' were two different things, and it is John
Klensin that I have to thank for making me aware of it. Nothing the IAB or IESG
had produced in the previous five years had brought out the distinction.
Likewise, it took several years to understand that the phrase 'RFC Editor'
carries overtones way beyond the task of editing something on its way to being
an RFC. Nothing wrong with giving the phrase a special meaning, but it should
be explained in more places.
Tom Petch
(*) on reflection, I think that there are more like 14 documents in this problem
space.
Brian
_______________________________________________
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