Re: [rfc-i] path forward with RFC 3932bis

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

 



Aaron Falk wrote:
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).
That phrase was also present in RFC 3932, and, as you note, in RFC 2026.
I'm concerned that in our eagerness to make the perfect document, we might be making too many changes, especially at what's hopefully a late stage in the process of getting that revised.

If I remember rightly (but vaguely) from the writing of 3932, the phrase was kept that way because we didn't want to be unable to speak about a document just because the WG wasn't chartered yet, or the work was processed through independent submissions to the IESG, or any of the other multitude of ways work gets done in the IETF without invoking excessive procedural overhead.

That said, the IESG notes in 3932 were tailored for conflict with WGs specifically - it was also the desire of the IESG-at-the-time that the note to the RFC Editor needed to *identify* the work it conflicted with, not just a vague "there's work in this area".

                       Harald


                        Harald



_______________________________________________

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]