--On Monday, May 10, 2004 10:57 AM -0400 Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
note that I just used the words that were there - do you suggest leaving teh words as they are? if not, maybe you can suggest something better
I guess that, before, the text was sufficiently muddy that I didn't catch the real problem, so thanks for trying to clarify it :-(.
Perhaps it should say something like...
o Special rules exist for some documents, including IAB documents and April 1st RFCs, and republication of documents from other SDOs. In some cases, these rules exist because the RFC Editor reports to the IAB on policy and strategy matters. The IESG and the RFC Editor keep a running dialogue, in consultation with the IAB, on other documents and classification of them.
I think that represents the current situation and agreements, and assume that the other text was just confusing. As you know, quite a lot of anguish has gone into this topic area in the past. It would be, IMO, a mistake to even reopen the issue unless there is compelling need to do so.
john
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf