Following a request to look at this document, and with only a cursory look
at the archives, I'm confused.
The note is always intended to be included in the document itself, right?
Is this change designed to compel, as opposed to request, the RFC Editor to
include the note?
If the answer to those is yes, then I support the change. The RFC Editor is
not selected to make judgments on whether a note from the IESG should, or
should not be included in a document. It's not an editorial judgment, it's
is a technical concern.
However, I think some form of appeal is needed, perhaps to the IAB, that
would allow authors some measure of control of what goes in their document.
Brian
On 8/31/09 9:29 AM, "Jari Arkko" <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> wrote:
I would like to get some further input from the community on this draft.
But first some background. This draft was brought to a second last call
in June because several IESG members felt uncomfortable with the IESG
notes being used only in exceptional circumstances. I asked Russ to
prepare the -07 version. This version allowed notes to be used at the
IESG's discretion and suggested that the linkage (or lack thereof) to
IETF work would typically be explained in the note. This version was
taken to the second last call.
While the number of comments we received was small, after the last call
was over I determined that the consensus was against this change. As a
result, I asked Russ to prepare the -08 version. This version goes back
to the "exceptional" wording from -06, but incorporated a number of
editorial corrections that had been made in interim. I also took the
draft back to the IESG telechat last week. The IESG was not extremely
pleased with the new version, but my understanding is that they were
willing to accept the changes. However, a new issue was brought up: one
of the changes that Russ and I felt was editorial highlighted the fact
that the document makes the IESG notes a recommendation to the RFC
Editor, not something that would automatically always be applied to the
published RFC. Some IESG members were concerned about this, and
preferred the latter.
And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like to get a
sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any exceptional IESG
note is just a recommendation to the RFC Editor or (b) something that is
always applied to the published RFC. Please reply before the next IESG
meeting on September 10. Some e-mails on this topic have already been
sent in the Last Call thread -- I have seen those and there is no need
to resend.
(For the record my own slight preference is b. But I have to say that I
think the document has been ready to be shipped from version -06, and
its unfortunate that we're not there yet, particularly since this
document is holding up the implementation of the new headers and
boilerplates system for independent submissions, IRTF submissions and
IETF submissions. I will exhaust all possible means of getting this
approved in the next meeting, as soon as I know what the community
opinion is.)
Jari Arkko
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf