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

Rob Sayre rsayre at mozilla.com
Tue Dec 9 09:30:52 PST 2008


Russ Housley wrote:
> Rob:
>
> 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.

OK, that is a difference. I don't think it demonstrates the accuracy of 
the proposed text, though.

>   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.

As documented in RFC 4846, the role is bigger than that. I have even 
heard of cases where the IESG recommended against publication because 
they were /considering/ forming a working group in the area.

I don't support text that might lead readers to believe there is no 
assocation with the IETF when the executive body of the IETF has a role 
in the process that explicitly curtails the independence of the 
submissions (I understand the practical reasons for this review).

- Rob
>
> Russ
>
> 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.
>>
>> - Rob
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list