[rfc-i] Fwd: Comment on headers-and-boilerplates
housley at vigilsec.com
Tue Dec 9 07:21:44 PST 2008
This is not true. The IESG does a significantly different review in
the two cases (as is described in RFC 3932). For individual
submissions that are sponsored by an AD, the IESG does a full
cross-Area technical review. For independent submissions from the
RFC Editor or IRTF, the IESG is not responsible for the technical
content, rather the IESG ensures that the document is not an end-run
around an IETF WG.
At 05:26 AM 12/9/2008, Rob Sayre wrote:
>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.
>rfc-interest mailing list
>rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest