Jari- The draft says: The RFC Editor reviews Independent Submission Stream submissions for suitability for publication as RFCs. As described in RFC 4846 [I3], the RFC Editor asks the IESG to review the documents for conflicts with the IETF standards process or work done in the IETF community. Similarly, documents intended for publication as part of the IRTF Stream are sent to the IESG for review for conflicts with the IETF standards process or work done in the IETF community [I2]. I'm concerned about the phrase "or work done in the IETF community." Unbound it can cover much, much more than IETF standards work. In fact, one could make the case that it covers the IRTF (since much IRTF work is done in the standards community. I don't believe IESG review should cover conflicts in the IRTF (or IAB or IETF Trust or ISOC or with other Independent Submissions authors...) The IESG's authority in this paragraphs derives from RFC2026 which is pretty clear: To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor, may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the IETF community. I'd like to see the phrase in question removed or perhaps clarified (say to include planned standards work or some such). --aaron -- Aaron Falk Chair Internet Research Task Force http://www.irtf.org _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf