No Allison - contracts are not what happens when people deal in bad faith - court battles are. Contracts are what happen when two or more parties want the formal relationship between them defined and their roles and responsibilities too. More inline ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allison Mankin" <mankin@xxxxxxx> To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Leslie Daigle" <leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "IETF Administrative Director" <iad@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; <iaoc@xxxxxxxx>; "Ted Hardie" <hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:38 PM Subject: Re: [IAOC] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request > > > > As was said, that is still an open discussion, so I don't think we > > can specify it today. > > I now see from the further discussion what some fault-lines are. > My concern is that "Edit and publish as for IETF community documents" > leaves open to the RFC Editor considerable latitude for how the independent > submissions appear in the broad community, for instance do they mimic > standards documents? Truth in advertising may need enforcement despite > best intentions. Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote well that: > > However, contracts are about what happens when someone you thought > would act in good faith fails to do so. > > Or perhaps, they are acting in good faith, but they are not effective - > who's to remedy if there's a problem by the editor and the authors slip > in specific effects [this could apply to the non-IETF streams in their own > ways too]. Effective delineations are needed. > > In proposing the text above, I did not envision that IESG should > control the issue - IAB has the purview for RFC Editor, as stated > in RFC 2850 and other sources. But I didn't think till Leslie's mail > about IAB taking off their IETF hats so much when dealing with RFC Editor > matters (having both non-IETF hats and IETF hats, as I read it). > > My main object is for the RFP to say to a prospective RFC Editor that > the delineation of the independent submission series will be under the > contract holder's management in some way, allowing input from the editor. This is a very bad idea since it doesnt define those requirements - and no one in their right mind would enter into a contract with the terms as nebulous as this. > I want to urge this just because the RFC series is shared by four > streams. In justifying this before, I've talked mainly about the IETF > stream because it is the one I know the best, but I could also detail > taking this care for the others. Anyway, here's a revised proposal > for the text: > > NEW NEW: > 1) Edit and publish with the same steps as IETF community > documents but with clear indications that these belong to > an independent series. Specifics of these indications will > be developed and authorized by an appropriate party to > be determined, with input from the RFC Editor. > > [More explication: the authorizing party is TBD, but it is not specified > as "IETF community"; the RFC Editor gives input rather than being self-defining.] > > > Allison > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf