Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:29:26 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>
Message-ID: <4A9BD036(_dot_)1000206(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>
| 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.
Definitely (a) - the reasons for this have already been made by many
others and I won't repeat them.
But, I'd also change the target of the recommendation - the IESG shouldn't
be asking or instructing the editor (whichever form of editor, RFC or ISE
or ...) in any way, rather they should be suggesting to the author of a
document that it would likely be more acceptable if it included some
extra particular text.
The editor would then, of course, take the author's response to that request
into account when deciding whether or not to publish the author's document.
Lastly, as has been stated already, but this time I will restate it for
emphasis, the IESG should not be making any kind of technical review of
independent submissions - the reason the review was even permitted (remember
previously independent submissions went directly to the RFC editor who simply
published them, or declined) was to allow work that was submitted independently
but which was directly in the same area as IETF work to be merged, and
all considered together. That is, the IESG is just supposed to determine
whether there is (or perhaps should be) a WG to work on the same topic, and
if so, invite the author to submit the document to that WG for further
review (and even possibly elevation into the standards track).
Beyond that, the IESG should be leaving independent submissions alone.
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf