As you know, I favor moving in this general direction. Three comments on specifics:
(1) The "standard IESG note" discussed in section 4 seems tailored to documents that specify protocols or operational procedures and, for that purpose, the notes suggested seem plausible. However, a some proportion of the independent submission documents submitted to the RFC Editor are of the nature of commentary, without proposing an Internet protocol or the equivalent. A somewhat toned-down version of the note might be appropriate for that purpose.
(2) We have, for many years, provided for the publication of the work of other standards bodies or groups for the convenience of the IETF community. For that case, the "standard IESG note" may not be quite right and might actually be taken as insulting to the other group. Instead, some statement noting that the document is a document of group X, was published with their permission (or at their request), and that publication is for the convenience of the Internet (or IETF) community but does not constitute endorsement or approval by the IETF would seem to me to be quite sufficient.
(3) The traditional exception for April 1 RFCs should probably be reflected in this document. This could most easily be accomplished, IMO, by modifying the first paragraph of section 3 to indicate that the IESG and RFC Editor (or the IAB and RFC Editor, see immediately below) may agree on classes of documents that are not subject to this review.
(4) The document ignores the traditional path of a document from the IAB to the RFC Editor, in which IESG review has been treated as an optional courtesy, not a requirement. It is also not clear that the IESG should request or recommend the rather strongly-worded disclaimers of section 4 for IAB documents. In any event, it is not, IMO, within the authority of the IESG to change the relationship between the RFC Editor and IAB. This could, of course, be subsumed under the "classes of documents" exception proposed above if the agreement involved the IAB and RFC Editor.
Nice job. john
--On Friday, 26 March, 2004 06:51 -0800 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The IESG has proposed a change in its present review procedures for IESG review of documents submitted directly to the RFC Editor for publication.
The IESG will be discussing this in detail, and with the RFC Editor, next week - the input document for that discussion is published as an I-D below
Your input is welcome!
Copy of the announcement below.
(note - between solutions, icar, poised and the IETF list, I chose the IETF list - I will post notes to the 3 other lists saying that I've asked for discussion of this on the IETF list.... judgment call).