If there is something in the IESG write-up that is needed to understand the nature of a document, that material should also appear in the document. Most people looking at RFCs probably don't even know that an IESG write-up might exist or where to find it and even those who do know about the IESG write-up will assume that the RFC (and possibly any Errata) are all they need to look at. This doesn't seem like a big deal. Just take the first two sentences of the "Working Group Summary" section of the IESG write-up and add them to the Abstract and/or Introduction, or something like that. Thanks, Donald On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Avygdor Moise <avy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear Nikos, > > I believe that you appropriately addressed the comment and I are in complete > agreement with your remarks. > > I'd would also like to point out that Mr. St. Johns' concerns are also > addressed on the IETF data tracker for this RFC > (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-c1222-transport-over-ip/), on the > IESG Write-ups tab. Specifically there is a Technical Summary, a Working > Group Summary and a Document Quality section. These sections fully disclose > and document the origin and the processes used to produce this RFC Draft and > the qualifications of the contributors. > > Sincerely > Avygdor Moise > > Chair: ASC C12 SC17, WG2 / ANSI C12.19; IEEE SCC31 / WG P1377 > Editor: ASC C12 SC17, WG1/ ANSI C12.22; IEEE SCC31 / WG 1703 > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of >> ext Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos >> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:49 AM >> To: Michael StJohns >> Cc: iesg@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: Document Action: 'ANSI C12.22, IEEE 1703 and MC12.22 >> TransportOver IP' to Informational RFC >> >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> > Hi - >> > I'm confused about this approval. >> > As I read the draft and the approval comments, this document is an >> independent submission describing how to do C12.22 over IP. But the >> document is without context for "who does this" typical to an >> informational RFC. >> >> Is that really typical? Check the MD5 algorithm in [0], I don't see >> such boilerplates like "we at RSA security do hashing like that". I >> think it is obvious that the authors of the document do that, or >> recommend that. I pretty like the current format of informational >> RFCs. >> >> [0]. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1321 >> >> > Is this >> > a) A document describing how the document authors would do this if >> they were a standards organization? >> > b) A description of how their company does this in their products? >> >> Is your question on what informational RFCs are? >> >> > c) A description of how another standards body (which one????) does >> this? >> >> I'd suppose if this was the case it would be mentioned in the document >> in question. >> >> > d) A back door attempt to form an international standard within the >> IETF without using the traditional IETF working group mechanisms? >> >> How can you know that? When somebody specifies his way of doing >> things, is to inform and have interoperability. It might actually >> happen that industry follows this approach and ends-up in a de-facto >> standard. I see nothing wrong with that. >> >> regards, >> Nikos >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf