Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:16:37 -0400
From: Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>
Message-ID:
<20091009181642(_dot_)626A8F2407C(_at_)odin(_dot_)smetech(_dot_)net>
| You have the motivations for rfc3932bis completely confused. The
| IESG is not the source for the proposed changes to RFC 3932. RFC
| 3932 as it stands works fine for the IESG, and the IESG continues to
| operate under it. The Independent submission stream and IRTF stream
| do not like the IESG notes that are mandated by RFC 3932.
I suspect that you, the IESG, and perhaps some others (perhaps even the RFC
editor) are confused as to the import of that RFC, or any RFC, in this area.
The IESG, and the IETF, simply do not have the power to tell the RFC editor
what to do, it isn't in the IETF's job description to do that.
Whatever the IESG says, whatever RFC3932 says, and whatever the result of
this current waste of everyone's time is, the RFC editor is completely
entitled (if he/she/it feels the need in a particular circumstance) to
simply ignore the IETF, the IESG, and anyone else not specifically having
some oversight capacity over the RFC editor (which does not include the IETF).
The RFC editor has agreed to send independent submissions to the IESG for
review, and that's fine, as it is for the RFC editor to accept advice from
the IESG (or anyone else the RFC editor decides to consult), or to reject
that advice if the editor believes that it doesn't advance the overall purposes
of the RFC series.
Nothing the IETF can do can change that, why is everyone wasting time on this?
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf