Hi John - I'm convinced we (the internet community) still need an true independent submissions path. I'm no longer convinced that the path should or can lead through the RFC editor. In the far past, the RFC Editor was a true independent entity - part of the internet community, participating and part of the IAB, but with its own funding source and a mandate to do the right thing. The RFC Editor was a both a technical and stylistic reviewer and final arbiter of what got published - but that wasn't a very heavy burden for the community. Over the years that independence has waned - with the cessation of independent funding, with Jon Postel's death, with the termination of the IETF's CNRI relationship, and most recently with the competition of the RFC Editor function. Control has been centralized and the RFC Editor's editorial independence has all but been eliminated. At this point, it appears to be about who gets to decide. And that goes back to the golden rule. It's too easy for those who control the funding to control the publication, especially since the RFC editor function has mostly been reduced to stylistics without the ability (either contractually or technically) to act as a fair and independent decider. I may be overstating the case, but I can't see how it could be any different given what I've read in the solicitations. I can't see any way to provide an objective set of publication rules that can be implemented by rote by the editor. Which right now throws the subjective decisions over to the IESG which can have a conflict of interest with respect to certain submissions - hence the whole set of discussions about "notes". I fear the problem is intractable without reference to an editorial/publication decision function that is completely independent of the IESG. Mike _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf