[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates

Rob Sayre rsayre at mozilla.com
Tue Dec 9 02:26:01 PST 2008


Leslie Daigle wrote:
> 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.
>   

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the Independent 
Stream isn't independent either. Section 5 of RFC 4846 documents the 
process by which an independent submission is examined by the IESG. An 
_independent_ stream would be free of such concerns, and free of IESG 
review. The only difference between an independent submission and an AD 
submission is the channel by which a document arrives at the IESG. The 
boilerplate addition might as well say

"This document reached the IESG without prior private communication with 
an IESG member."

So, I oppose the proposed addition to the boilerplate of the independent 
stream. The text is inaccurate.

- Rob


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list