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