Spencer, Perhaps they thought you confused, but perhaps they were wrong? As far as I know, the current process for publishing FOO as an RFC is via submission of an Internet Draft. Anyone can do that. -- Eric -----Original Message----- From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:40 PM To: Eric Gray; Scott Brim; Lars Eggert Cc: IETF discussion list Subject: Re: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate Importance: High Hi, Eric, The guidance I was getting on the wgchairs mailing list was that "other groups" is limited to other groups that also use the Internet-Draft mechanism (including submissions, repositories, etc) - I was interpreting "other groups" more broadly, and was told that I was confused. Thanks, Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Scott Brim" <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx>; "Lars Eggert" <lars.eggert@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: "IETF discussion list" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:23 AM Subject: RE: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate Spencer, I am pretty sure it really is that open ended (i.e. - there is no real restriction on who can submit an Internet Draft, other than that they probably have to have Internet access, and that means that it is difficult to say that "other groups" does not include any group in the inhabited galaxy that has access to the Internet, and can produce a document that passes the "idnits minimal acceptability" test). -- Eric -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:52 AM To: Scott Brim; Lars Eggert Cc: IETF discussion list Subject: Re: request for feedback: change to the ID boilerplate Yeah, I got wrapped around this on the WGchairs list, too. Thanks, Jeff, for schooling me. The problem is that "other groups" really is open-ended, but we don't mean "other groups somewhere in the inhabited galaxy, that produce working drafts using the same format", we mean "other groups like IAB that are closely related to the IETF, but are not the IETF, and who ALSO use the same Internet-Drafts format, submission process and repository". Is there a shorthand for this, or do we have to stay vague to the point of meaninglessness? Thanks, Spencer > The idea is generally acceptable to me but: > >>> Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering >>> Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute >>> working documents as Internet-Drafts. > > While we're at it, these two sentences are contradictory. > "Internet-Drafts are a specific thing" but "some Internet-Drafts may be > something else". Since you have (reasonably) eliminated reference to > areas and working groups, how about modifying this to say > >> The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) distributes its working >> documents as Internet-Drafts. Note that other groups may also >> distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf