I am under
the understanding the the IESG Note in RFC is provided by the IESG not
by the RFC Editor. Is there a document that says otherwise? (I'm
certainly open to the possibility that perhaps these documents should
not have an IESG note but that seems a different issue)
My understanding of this text is that the IESG can recommend text,
including an IESG Note. The RFC Editor can accept it or not.
...
I'm pretty sure, though, that there has been pushback and negotiation
on quite a few occasions. It's important that the RFC Editor keeps
this power, in the general interest of checks and balances.
+1.
One can debate various details and costs about the RFC Editor function. But it
really is quite useful to have the editor exert an independent review of IESG
efforts to modify an RFC.
Not because the IESG is suspect, but because it is deeply involved in the topics
it comments on and that could cause misguided decisions. By contrast, the RFC
Editor can consider suggested IESG notes with detachment.
My impression, too, is that this has produced revised IESG text.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf