John:
In the previous note from me, I responded to you and Jari on your
main points. In this note, I am responding to your editorial points.
Textual nit-picking
* The second full paragraph of the Introduction ("The IETF is
responsible..."), second sentence, should read "..., and any
other IETF-generated Informational or Experimental documents".
Otherwise, one may suck most of the Independent Submission
stream into the IETF stream, contradicting the rest of the
document. Part of the problem with the text that is now in the
document is that there is no clear definition of
"standards-related".
I agree. The revised sentence reads: "These RFCs, and any other
IETF-generated Informational or Experimental documents, are reviewed
by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of the IETF Stream."
* The document is confused about tense and mood of particular
words and the general tone of the language used. For example,
Section 1 Paragraph 5, last sentence, says "...was a
considerable drain... this is not" and should probably should
have been "...this was not". As another example, consider the
numbered list in Section 3. The first item says "has not
found", but the others are "The IESG finds". Note also the
difference between "a finding" and the result of an unsuccessful
search ("we looked for it and didn't find it"). Personally, I
believe that the notion of the IESG making "findings"
excessively judicial -- several of these items are really
statements about the IESG's beliefs-- but that is a matter of
taste.
Agree: s/this is not/this was not/
To make them all parallel in structure, the first numbered item in
section 3 becomes: "1. The IESG finds no conflict between this
document and IETF work."
In RFC 3932, these numbered items (except the first one, which is the
same until the modification above) begin "The IESG thinks" During
pre-Last-Call-review, I received feedback that "The IESG finds" was a
better. Now, you propose "The IESG believes". I do believe that
the current wording is better than the original. I'm willing to
change it to something else if there is consensus to do so. What do
other reviewers find/think/believe/prefer?
* The assertion in paragraph 7 of Section 1 is not correct.
While it probably was the case in the years _immediately_
preceding 2006, there was a period of several years in which the
IAB performed a (sometimes pro-forma) review of IRTF
Informational and Experimental documents and then published them
as IAB documents, with minimal or no interaction with the IESG.
Of course, IRTF submissions onto the standards track (if not
entirely prohibited) are outside the scope of this document.
I suggest the following change to the first sentence in that
paragraph: "Prior to 2006, documents from the IRTF were treated as
either IAB submissions or individual submissions via the RFC Editor."
* If you really want to right to claim "harmful to the
Internet", then Section 6 is incomplete, because some of the
classes of harm that you might be trying to prevent involve
security.
Are you talking about this paragraph?
If the IESG does not find any conflict between an independent
submission and IETF work, then the RFC Editor is responsible for
judging the technical merits for that submission, including
considerations of possible harm to the Internet. If the IESG does
not find any conflict between an IRTF submission and IETF work, then
the IRSG is responsible for judging the technical merits for that
submission, including considerations of possible harm to the
Internet.
* Finally, unless the omission from the Acknowledgments was
intended as an editorial comment, I call your attention to the
rather extensive discussion I participated in about this
document among Jari, Olaf, yourself, and sometimes Leslie and
Harald in early October. Although I identified the historical
problem with the description of IRTF processes there (a comment
that was apparently ignored, since the problematic text is still
present), several of my comments made it into the document. I
believe that that the IETF's IPR rules, as well as ordinary
courtesy, require that set of contributions (which certainly
include Jari's) be reflected in the Acknowledgments. That is
clearly a nit and, at some level, I don't care. But it also
suggests, especially in context with some of the issues raised
above, that this document has been handled somewhat less
carefully that might be appropriate for something of its
importance.
The acknowledgements now include these names: Jari Arkko, Leslie
Daigle, Lars Eggert, Aaron Falk, Sam Hartman, John Klensin, and Olaf
Kolkman. My apologies to anyone who was inadvertently omitted. If
others ought to be included as well, please speak up.
Russ
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf