Following a request to look at this document, and with only a cursory look at the archives, I'm confused. The note is always intended to be included in the document itself, right? Is this change designed to compel, as opposed to request, the RFC Editor to include the note? If the answer to those is yes, then I support the change. The RFC Editor is not selected to make judgments on whether a note from the IESG should, or should not be included in a document. It's not an editorial judgment, it's is a technical concern. However, I think some form of appeal is needed, perhaps to the IAB, that would allow authors some measure of control of what goes in their document. Brian On 8/31/09 9:29 AM, "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I would like to get some further input from the community on this draft. > > But first some background. This draft was brought to a second last call > in June because several IESG members felt uncomfortable with the IESG > notes being used only in exceptional circumstances. I asked Russ to > prepare the -07 version. This version allowed notes to be used at the > IESG's discretion and suggested that the linkage (or lack thereof) to > IETF work would typically be explained in the note. This version was > taken to the second last call. > > While the number of comments we received was small, after the last call > was over I determined that the consensus was against this change. As a > result, I asked Russ to prepare the -08 version. This version goes back > to the "exceptional" wording from -06, but incorporated a number of > editorial corrections that had been made in interim. I also took the > draft back to the IESG telechat last week. The IESG was not extremely > pleased with the new version, but my understanding is that they were > willing to accept the changes. However, a new issue was brought up: one > of the changes that Russ and I felt was editorial highlighted the fact > that the document makes the IESG notes a recommendation to the RFC > Editor, not something that would automatically always be applied to the > published RFC. Some IESG members were concerned about this, and > preferred the latter. > > And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like to get a > sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any exceptional IESG > note is just a recommendation to the RFC Editor or (b) something that is > always applied to the published RFC. Please reply before the next IESG > meeting on September 10. Some e-mails on this topic have already been > sent in the Last Call thread -- I have seen those and there is no need > to resend. > > (For the record my own slight preference is b. But I have to say that I > think the document has been ready to be shipped from version -06, and > its unfortunate that we're not there yet, particularly since this > document is holding up the implementation of the new headers and > boilerplates system for independent submissions, IRTF submissions and > IETF submissions. I will exhaust all possible means of getting this > approved in the next meeting, as soon as I know what the community > opinion is.) > > Jari Arkko > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf