Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter

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

 




I want to speak to one facet of comment that I believe
is going to be a common thread:

[Ran Atkinson wrote:]
Similarly, it is a bug that the IETF process would govern the
publication of non-IETF documents.  The IETF process properly
should govern how IETF generated documents should be handled
for publication.  However, the IETF processes ought not govern
how IRTF, IAB, or other non-IETF documents are handled by the
RFC Editor.


TechSpec is working on the IETF requirements, specifically.

The other "publication tracks" in the above is meant to be
for -- IAB, IRTF, independent submissions, <whatever comes next>.



When the current IAB/IESG organisational structure was setup,
it was a deliberate choice to have the RFC Editor under the IAB
and not under the IESG -- because the RFC Editor's scope was
(and is) much larger than the IETF or the IESG's scope.  Requiring
that all policies have to go through the IETF processes (which
many IETF people consider badly wedged) for approval is a major
and undesirable change, IMHO.

The goal is to have a public means for defining, adjusting and
agreeing to the requirements of those tracks.    Better formulations
for that welcomed!

Leslie.

_______________________________________________

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]