Leslie Daigle wrote:
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>.
I think there are a couple of points to add here.
1. Since it's the IETF nomcom process that appoints the IAB, and
the IAB that oversees the IRTF, it's a bit of a stretch to say that
the IAB and IRTF aren't part of the IETF family. It would be very
artificial to completely separate these discussions. They need to
converge in the RFP anyway.
2. We have a specific segment on the independent submissions
channel in the General Area open meeting in Dallas. I'm a defender
of the existence of that channel, but that doesn't mean it
is something that exists without being chartered, funded and
accountable in some way.
Brian
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