Re: Last Call: 'The IESG and RFC Editor documents: Procedures' to BCP

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



--On Monday, May 10, 2004 9:33 AM -0400 Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


looks good to me - one suggestion of clearer language and a potential addition

  o  Documents for which special rules exist, including IAB
  documents and April 1st RFCs, and republication of
     documents from other SDOs - the IESG and the RFC Editor
     keep a running dialogue on which documents these are

awkward wording - maybe you want to say


   o  The IESG and the RFC Editor keep a running dialogue on
which         documents require special rules (for example,
IAB documents,         April 1st RFCs, and republication of
documents from other SDOs)

Scott, while I agree that the current language is not optimal, I don't think the above is the right fix. The whole point of the agreements about publication of IAB documents is that the RFC Editor reports, from an overall policy and strategy standpoint, with the IAB. Turning that situation into "the IESG and the RFC Editor keep a running dialogue" rather dramatically revises (or confuses) that situation.


john

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]