I'd like to keep this discussion focused on the question that Jari
asked. While changes to the Independent Stream can be discussed,
that seems like rfc4846bis, not this document ...
Several people have said that the RFC Editor already has the
authority we are discussing here. Sadly, it is not that simple. The
words cited below from RFC 3932 cloud this issue. I think they
conflict with the words in the RFCs cited by John.
RFC 3932 says:
The IESG may return five different responses, any of which may be
accompanied by an IESG note to be put on the document if the RFC
Editor wishes to publish.
I think that "... to be put on the document if the RFC Editor wishes
to publish" is the heart of the matter. RFC 3932 leaves the RFC
Editor with the final say on publication, but if the document is
published, the note must be included.
Sam and Pasi have already pointed out that the RFC Editor can appeal
the action taken by the IESG if they think the note is off base. In
practice, the RFC Editor has asked the IESG to reconsider the text of
one note, and the IESG has done so. There have not been any appeals
on this topic since the publication of RFC 3932.
The rfc3932bis-08 text provides greater flexibility to the RFC
Editor, making the IESG note a recommendation to the RFC Editor. The
is the flexibility that several people have claimed the RFC Editor
has had all along based on other documents.
Please, let's try to answer this one question on this thread: When
the IESG performs review of an Independent stream or IRTF stream
document and provides an IESG Note, does the RFC Editor have the
authority (without a request for reconsideration or an appeal) to
publish the document without the IESG Note?
Russ
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf