Russ,
On 9/24/2012 7:02 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Dave:
The IESG has updated the draft IESG Statement based on the many
comments that have been received. It is clear that the community
wants the IESG to be able to remove an Internet-Draft from the
Public I-D Archive without a court order to do so.
I hadn't remembered that we have existing text that already covers this,
in RFC 2026. (It's also worth noting that, apparently, IETF counsel
considers the existing RFC 2026 text sufficient.)
What isn't clear is why you are promoting additional language which
seems to conflict with 2026, introduces some vague terminology (abuse,
leadership), and covers only a subset of I-Ds.
The IAB and IRTF are not part of the IETF? The Independent stream
also uses I-Ds. Isn't it part of the IETF?
No. The Independent Stream is not part of the IETF. Like the IAB
and the IRTF, the independent Stream has chosen to use I-Ds.
RFC 4844 says:
5.1.4. Independent Submission Stream
The RFC Series has always served a broader Internet technical
community than the IETF. The "Independent Submission" stream is
defined to provide review and (possible) approval of documents that
are outside the scope of the streams identified above.
First, I note that you didn't respond about the IRTF or the IAB. And my
original query should have included the RFC Editor (which happens to
fall under the IAB.)
Apparently you consider the IRTF, IAB and RFC Editor all to be outside
the IETF.
Second, it appears that you are taking the "served a broader Internet
technical community than the IETF" language as the basis for declaring
the Independent Stream also to be outside of the IETF.
I think you are confusing the source with the agency and result that
produces the output.
By implication, your assessment seems to mean that the only target for
the output of working groups are people who participate in the IETF. Or
that anyone who consumes the output of an IETF working group is
automatically part of the IETF.
That is, you seem to be confusing the source of authors with the
publication vehicle itself and the target audience(s) of the work.
Independent Stream authors well might not be "part of" the IETF --
always a strange line of thinking, given that the IETF doesn't have
members -- but that doesn't mean that the Stream itself is outside the IETF.
This second basis looks sufficiently broad and vague to invite its
own abuse and certainly inconsistent application. Did IETF counsel
express comfort with this language?
>
Counsel has been consulted. After exchanging several messages, this
is the resulting text. This text was never a part that was edited in
the exchange.
You are saying that IETF Counsel did not offer comment on this bit of text?
Actually, I note that you didn't actually answer my question: Does the
IETF Counsel like the text?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net