Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of IESG notes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





John, in principle,  I would be delighted by this option if you made a few more changes to make the RFC process more accountable:

1) Open up the rfc-editorial board so that it was selected by some sort of nomcom/community process.  That nomcom could of course draw from a broader community than the IETF as a whole

2) Provide an appeals path for IAB decisions related to the RFC-editor function

I have a lot more faith in the IETF process than I do the RFC editor
process.


Sam,

If you have a specific complaint about the functioning of the RFC Editor, please bring it out on the rfc-interest list. I don't know what kind of abuse you think we are open to, but I would certainly like to hear it.

Bob Braden
 I believe that the RFC editor process is more open to a
different type of abuse than the IESG process, but I believe we have a
far more open process for addressing problems with the IESG than we do
with IAB decisions about the RFC editor or with the RFC editor process
itself.

However, absent these changes, I don't believe there would be
appropriate checks and balances present.
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]