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.
Right, I don't think the RFC Editor can vary the IESG note without IESG
agreement (otherwise it would not be an IESG note, it would be an RFC Editor
note).
So, at the crunch (loggerheads) the RFC Editor is faced with the choice of
including the note or not.
The debate (AFAICS) is about whether the IESG can require a note to be
included or whether the RFC Editor is free to leave the note out.
Dave Crocker said...
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.
I *do* agree that letting the RFC Editor debate the content of the note is
very valuable. As Dave says, the RFC Editor can bring independence and
detachment. But I would like for this to be a debate/negotiation. If the RFC
Editor (for whatever good reason) wishes to leave the note out and the IESG
wishes (for some other equally good reason) to leave the note in, we need to
be able to resolve the conflict.
Options clearly are:
- RFC Editor has the power
- IESG has the power
- A third party (RSE?) has the power
- IESG and RFC Editor are required to reach consensus
We do need the community to make this decision.
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf