--On Monday, August 31, 2009 13:20 -0500 Adam Roach
<adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> And given that these are Independent Submissions, they aren't
>> supposed to be subject to community review.
>
> Given this fact, why is there pushback on the idea that we
> would prominently mark the documents to indicate that they
> have not been subjected to community review? It seems like the
> kind of thing that is of extreme relevance to the reader.
Because the statement "this has not been subjected to community
review" is often factually incorrect and because there are
multiple communities out there. Some of these documents are
actually more intensively reviewed, by more experts, than some
things the IETF puts on the standards track.
If the IESG were inclined to quiz the RFC Editor as to what
review had occurred and then jointly identify each document,
including IETF Stream documents, with the precise type of review
that had occurred, we would be having a different discussion.
Headers and Boilerplates provides for some of that type of
annotation without requiring any IESG notes.
Alternately, if the IESG wanted to subject every Independent
Submission document to IETF Last Call, review the results of
that Last Call, and on that basis, sometimes generate a note and
subject it to IETF Last Call, I'd have no problem at all
introducing a section into Independent Submission Track RFCs
containing the IETF's opinion of the document, identified as
such. For lots of good reasons, I don't expect that to happen
and do not consider vague text that may be false (e.g., claiming
that no review within the IETF community occurred when, in fact,
it might have) to be helpful in this regard. I also believe
that having the IESG tell lies that can easily be tested and
exposed as such does not contribute positively to the reputation
of the IETF.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf