--On Tuesday, September 01, 2009 16:37 +0300 Jari Arkko
<jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> wrote:
Robert,
the IESG should not be making any kind of technical review of
independent submissions
Right, and we are not.
- the reason the review was even permitted ... 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 indeed the primary goal of the 3932 and 3932bis. I.e.,
promote independent work, but allow a check in the exceptional
case that it collides with IETF work.
And that is, again, the answer to the question you raised. In
the context of Headers and Boilerplates, the stream is
identified. Many will pay attention or learn to do so. Others
will not, but, for them (regardless of their motivation), there
is no evidence that "notices" in obvious front-matter
boilerplate will be noticed either.
If members of the IESG have technical issues with a document,
let them raise them as interested, skilled, and persuasive
individuals as both the current and proposed revised versions of
3932, and your comment above indicate that they should. If
they have major philosophical disagreements, let them write
critical commentary, with explanations and details, and see if
they can get them published as RFCs. Independent of their
ability to use the IETF Track to self-publish, I have never, in
the history of the RFC Series, seen the RFC Editor turn down a
competently written and clear criticism of another document --
IMO, in the last decade or two, there have been far too few such
submissions.
Conversely, independent of technical substance, if the document
is not clear enough about what it is --from the text-- tell the
RFC Editor (ISE) and thereby promote a discussion with the
authors about changes to make the document more clear. If the
ISE ignores that advice, we quite frankly have a more serious
problem. But I've never, and I mean never, seen that happen.
To rephrase what others have said, attaching derogatory notes
without explanations or specific attribution is the act of lazy
people who either cannot or will not take responsibility for
making document-specific comments that can either be attributed
to those making them or that have been through enough process to
represent IETF consensus.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf