Hi Robert, On 9/9/09 8:54 AM, "Robert Elz" <kre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:17:50 -0400 > From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <tsl7hw89xk1.fsf@xxxxxxx> > > | Right; I think I made it fairly clear in my reply to John Klensin that > | I disagreed fairly strongly with that and argued why I believed that > | the IETF needs a special role to attach a note to something. No > | discussion prior or since has changed my mind. > > Ask yourself if you'd have the same opinion if the IETF was publishing > its output in IEEE Transactions on Networking (or any similar publication), > or even something like the NY Times. > IMHO, the RFC series (as comprised by the four document streams) is not similar to IEEE Transactions on Networking or the NY Times. I am not sure that there is really a close analog out there. > Would you still expect the IESG to be able to tell the editor of that > publication what they are required to do? > > Then note that this is exactly the same ralationship that the RFC > editor should have with the IETF. > The better question is, if IEEE was distributing the output of the IETF in its series of standards publications and the IETF work was in conflict with their own standards, would it be appropriate to publish without a note from the IEEE explaining the incongruity? And are we really helping anyone by not clarifying the relationship between the document and other RFCs? Shouldn't we provide this information as a service to the reader? Tim > In any case, if the editor is failing to perform adequately, the correct > response is to replace the editor - there is no rational consittuency here > in which to seek consensus (no matter who does the seeking) and no-one > rational to handle appeals, so I'm not in favour of John K's compromise > proposal. > > Simply allow the editor the discretion to make his/her own decisions > (in this case, it will become the ISE with co-ordination from the RFC editor) > and then if they're failing (which mostly means, not getting things published, > but might also mean sub-standad publications), then replace them with > someone who can do better. > > Nothing more than that is needed. > > kre > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf