On Sep 21, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
Ok - the problem I have, and the reason that I asked, is that it is
not
clear to me that the Independent Series Editor (ISE) is part of the
RFC
Editor any more than the ISRG is going to be. Thus it is the ISE
not the
RFC Editor that will be asking for the IESG to review documents in the
future. The first level of negotiations would be between the ISE
and the
ISEG, the second level would add the RSE and the final level would
be the
IAB.
RFC Editor includes the ISE (the model defined the ISE as one of the
components of the RFC Editor)
RFC5620:
"Note that RFC 4844 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC
Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which this
memo
provides a model for internal organization. This memo introduces
the
term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" for one of the
organizational components."
This change from the RFC Editor processing independent submissions
to an ISE
doing the same thing - with an additional layer of possible internal
review
from the RSE - is not reflected in the document.
Correct. Personally I don't think that is a big issue. If the RFC
series allowed footnotes I would add a footnote about how it would
work out with the ISE and RSE in version 1 of the RFC Editor model ....
--Olaf
________________________________________________________
Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf