[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
sm at resistor.net
Mon Dec 8 13:34:19 PST 2008
At 10:45 08-12-2008, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>So, what is "the IETF"? At different times, and for different purposes,
>it refers either to the IETF standards process, or a loose
>confederation of organizations that play in this space.
>To rationalize these texts so that they are all aligned, I would suggest:
>1/ The text in the IRTF Stream header ("It is not a product of the
>IETF") is wrong. At most, it should be "It is not a product of an IETF
>WG or IESG approved activity". Or, "It is not a product of the IETF
>Standards Process". Or, nothing (see below).
A product of the IETF doesn't necessarily have to be a product of an
IETF Working Group. Documents from the IRTF Stream are not a product
of the IETF as they do not go through the
Internet Standards Process. draft-irtf-rfc defines the Internet
Research Task Force (IRTF) Document Stream. The only IESG review is
to assure that there is no conflict with current IETF work.
The "IRTF focuses on longer term research issues related to the
Internet while the parallel organization, the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), focuses on the shorter term issues of engineering
and standards making". To suite our purpose, we could say that the
IRTF is not part of the IETF.
>2/ The text in the IAB Stream header should be aligned with the IRTF
>text, as well.
It gets more complicated when it's the IAB stream as the IAB is part
of the IETF (some people may disagree about that).
>That is -- if the point of having additional text in the Independent
>Stream is to make it very plain that it is _independent_, then it is the
>only stream that really needs to say "This is not a product of the
>IETF"; and the text should be removed from the IRTF Stream; the IRTF is
>not completely independent of the IETF general process.
It's easier to say that "this is not a product of the IETF" or else
there is an overlap with the IETF Stream.
More information about the rfc-interest