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 the RFC Editor that will be asking for the IESG to review documents in the future. 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 the IAB. This change from the RFC Editor processing independent submissions to an ISE doing the same thing - with an additional layer of possible internal review from the RSE - is not reflected in the document. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:06 AM > To: Jim Schaad > Cc: 'IETF Discussion'; 'RFC Interest'; 'IAB'; 'Olaf M. Kolkman'; > 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; 'Russ Housley' > Subject: Re: [rfc-i] path forward with RFC 3932bis > > Jim, > > > Is there a reason that RFC 5620 (RFC Editor Model Version 1) has not > been > > taken into account while doing this update? It would seem that this > could > > change some of the processes from what they are today. > > > I think we have taken it into account, or can you describe more exactly > what issue you are thinking of? > > In my e-mail, I explained that our proposed resolution can be thought > of > as an additional process rule on top of 5620 and other relevant RFCs. > There are alternative resolutions that can be expressed purely as > applications of 5620, but they may have other downsides. > > But the bottom line is that I think we should avoid focusing too much > on > what can be done. If the community (IETF, IAB, outside) wants a > particular model, we should pick that and get it over with. With this > in > mind, what would you Jim like to see as the end result? > > Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf