More broadly than just to John ...
On May 30, 2015 09:55, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> --On Saturday, May 30, 2015 10:14 -0500 David Farmer
> <farmer@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> On May 30, 2015, at 01:48, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> I like this draft, but I suggest that it apply to ALL RFCs
> >> (not just the IETF stream).
> >...
>
> > Sorry but I disagree. Not ALL RFCs, to exemplify why, I think
> > the use of a humorous nom de plume or a sarcastic
> > acknowledgement would be perfectly legitimate for RFCs
> > published on a particular day in the spring.
> >
> > Authorship, contribution, and acknowledgement are serious and
> > important issues, but that is no reason to completely abandon
> > or exclude humor and sarcasm in appropriate doses.
>
> Indeed. In addition, I think the principle that each stream
> should have the option of following the IETF's lead but
> modifying it for local circumstances or striking out on its own
> is an important one to preserve for all sorts of reasons.
That's certainly the current IESG view as I understand it. I don't speak for the IESG, of course.
> There
> are also bits in the draft that I'd expect the RFC Editor might
> adopt as general policy, but, again, the principle that the RFC
> Editor and not the IESG, makes those decisions is important.
The IESG gets that (we know what the IETF stream does, and YMMV in other streams).
To slightly complicate things, the IESG is hearing complaints about documents at the Internet-Draft stage within the IETF stream. I'm not sure what the concerns would look like for other streams (and I don't think I'm supposed to, as an AD).
The Lovely Heather Flanagan was in the room when this was discussed in the IESG, with at least four or five IAB folk present, and we're talking to Lars. I'm not the one sending all the email for the IESG, but if the ISE hasn't seen this yet, I'm sure he will soon.
Spencer