ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis (IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions) to BCP

2008-11-09 17:11:20
Thanks for your review.  My responses below.

The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:

- 'IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream
   Submissions '
   <draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-04.txt> as a BCP

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the

I'm commenting on draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-05 as that's the latest version at the moment.

In Section 1:

  "These RFCs, and any other Informational or Experimental standards-related
documents, are reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of
   the IETF Stream."

I read that as Informational and Experimental are also standards-related. This is at odds with statements such as "This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." which is usually seen in Informational and Experimental documents.

Not all Informational and Experimental documents are standards-related. Some are. Not all Informational and Experimental documents are published as part of the IETF stream. Some are. I'm not sure what text change would help add clarity.

Although most people know what WG is, it doesn't hurt to have the following for clarity:

  This review was often a full-scale  review of technical content, with the
  Area Director (ADs) attempting to clear points with the authors, stimulate
  revisions of the documents, encourage the authors to contact appropriate
  working groups (WG) and so on.

Sure.

In Section 3:

  "3. The IESG finds that publication is harmful to the IETF work done
      in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the document at this time."

I don't think that harmful is appropriate here. I gather that the aim is to prevent circumvention of the IETF process and conflicts with work being carried out by the Working Group.

It could be phrased as:

    The IESG finds that this work is related to IETF work done in WG <X>
    and recommends not publishing the document at this time.

This is very similar to the point raised by John Klensin. Since "harmful" is the term used in RFC 3292, I have asked Harald to provide some insights before making any changes to this wording. I understand your point, but I want to make sure that I'm not missing some historical context.

  "5. The IESG finds that this document extends an IETF protocol in a
      way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
      published without IETF review and IESG approval."

I read that as "we cannot publish this document as it requires IETF review and IESG approval". It may be easier for all parties to ask for an IETF review instead of rejecting publication outright.

The point is that a different publication path, not the Independent Publication Stream, is needed to obtain the IETF review. That is the point of the IETF stream.

  "The IESG assumes that the RFC Editor, in agreement with the IAB, will
   manage mechanisms for appropriate technical review of independent
   submissions. Likewise, the IESG also assumes that the IRSG, in
   agreement with the IAB, will manage mechanisms for appropriate
   technical review of IRTF submissions."

I don't see why there has to be assumptions here. I suggest dropping the "assumes" and clearly spell out who is going to manage what.

How about:

The RFC Editor, in agreement with the IAB, shall manage mechanisms for appropriate technical review of independent submissions. Likewise, the IRSG, in agreement with the IAB, shall manage mechanisms for appropriate technical review of IRTF submissions.

Russ

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf