Joe thanks for the plumber and janitor response. My response to the same statement would be: The IETF's Editor's have a responsibility to NOT alter IP that is submitted to the IETF - that can by the Standards process ONLY happen through the IETF's Vetting process and is not the perogative of the Editors. But there is more - If a Submitter has their IP modified by the IETF Editors outside of the Vetting Process it constitues an adversarial action in creating another derivative by the Editors since they were given a specific set of properties for the particular reason of vetting those IP's - not those IP's as modified by the Editors... that's why the Editors need an arms length from the process. Todd -----Original Message----- >From: Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> >Sent: Jul 21, 2006 9:03 AM >To: Marcus Leech <mleech@xxxxxxxxxx> >Cc: Todd Glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, IETF Administrative Director <iad@xxxxxxxx>, IETF Announcement list <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: RFC Editor Function SOW Review > > > >Marcus Leech wrote: >> Todd Glassey wrote: >> >>> Hmmmm... The SOW MUST define all the elements of the Editor's >>> responsibility and all the specific tasks they perform as well as the >>> SLA's for those Tasks. It also MUST address the SOD (Separation of >>> Duties) within the Editor's work since they are altering the IP >>> submitted. >>> >>> Without that ther is no comprehensive model for evaluating how well >>> the IETF met its standards and whether it caused damage to others in >>> the process. >>> >>> Todd Glassey as an Auditor. >>> >> Methinks you've drunk too deeply of the SOX Kool-Aid, Todd. Along >> what lines would you >> suggest that the RFC Editor "separate its duties"? >> >> Perhaps you would also reccommend that the guy who replaces the air >> freshener blocks >> in the mens bathroom not also be the same guy who fixes the plumbing? > >It isn't; one is typically a janitor, the other a plumber. > >> Or maybe the >> guy who diagnoses your automotive problems be different from the guy >> who actually >> fixes it? Perhaps in the RFC-Editor function, the person who fixes >> missing commas >> and semi-colons, should be different from the person who addresses >> clarity and >> normative reference issues? > >Clarity and normative reference issues are often content specific. They >require knowledge of Internet protocols and their interrelationships >(even if the IESG approves the doc doesn't mean the doc is written >clearly in that regard). > >General text editing is not content specific. > >If you think you can find someone knowledgable enough in the Internet >who wants to burn their time fixing typos, please do. I suspect a >separation of duties will be necessary otherwise. > >Joe > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf