On Aug 28, 2009, at 4:13 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
the understanding the the IESG Note in RFC is provided by the IESG notI am underby the RFC Editor. Is there a document that says otherwise? (I'mcertainly open to the possibility that perhaps these documents shouldnot have an IESG note but that seems a different issue)My understanding of this text is that the IESG can recommend text, including an IESG Note. The RFC Editor can accept it or not.
As Russ said: the IESG can suggest text, which can be an IESG note. The RFC Editor, more specifically the Independent Submission Editor, is responsible for the followup, which includes the possibility of the variation described below.
FWIW (and in my no-hats opinion) this 'negotiation' between IESG and ISE should all happen well before the RFC is submitted to the production center and the RFC Series Editor (RSE) should in general not be part of this loop. Only if the ISE and the IESG cannot come to agreement then the RSE is called in as described in RFC5620 section 4.1.3.
...I'm pretty sure, though, that there has been pushback and negotiation on quite a few occasions. It's important that the RFC Editor keeps this power, in the general interest of checks and balances.+1.One can debate various details and costs about the RFC Editor function. But it really is quite useful to have the editor exert an independent review of IESG efforts to modify an RFC.Not because the IESG is suspect, but because it is deeply involved in the topics it comments on and that could cause misguided decisions. By contrast, the RFC Editor can consider suggested IESG notes with detachment.My impression, too, is that this has produced revised IESG text. d/ --
________________________________________________________
Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf