Re: RFC Editor Function SOW Review

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

 




Todd Glassey wrote:
> 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.

TThere are changes that do not affect IP - notably most corrections to
tense, spelling, punctuation, etc. There are changes that might affect
IP - those that involve unclear specification (a field with 8 values,
only 5 of which are described), etc. It's useful to catch these - though
the author determines how best to handle them.

I.e., the Editors don't change things, they raise questions or suggest
changes. The author and/or IESG (depending on suggested change) would
obviously have last say.

And the 'standards process' issue applies only to standards-track; there
are other docs (Informational, BCP, Experimental) that are handled as well.

Joe



> -----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
>>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________

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]