On Sep 21, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
Ok - the problem I have, and the reason that I asked, is that it is not clear to me that the Independent Series Editor (ISE) is part of the RFC Editor any more than the ISRG is going to be. Thus it is the ISE not theRFC Editor that will be asking for the IESG to review documents in thefuture. The first level of negotiations would be between the ISE and the ISEG, the second level would add the RSE and the final level would be theIAB.
RFC Editor includes the ISE (the model defined the ISE as one of the components of the RFC Editor)
RFC5620: "Note that RFC 4844 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFCEditor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which this memo provides a model for internal organization. This memo introduces the
term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" for one of the organizational components."
This change from the RFC Editor processing independent submissions to an ISE doing the same thing - with an additional layer of possible internal reviewfrom the RSE - is not reflected in the document.
Correct. Personally I don't think that is a big issue. If the RFC series allowed footnotes I would add a footnote about how it would work out with the ISE and RSE in version 1 of the RFC Editor model ....
--Olaf
________________________________________________________
Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf