[rfc-i] RFC Editor Model Final Version?

Bob Braden braden at ISI.EDU
Tue Sep 9 19:49:30 PDT 2008


>
>
>It is not clear to me why the RFC errata process is under the jurisdiction
>of the RFC editor.  First there is a conflict as the Independent Submission
>Editor is responsible for that stream's errata processing.

Jim,

There is a distinction between managing the overall process and processing
a particular stream.  For each stream, someone is responsible for editing,
verifying or rejecting each errata report for an RFC in that stream.  But
someone has to make sure the server is not wedged, to handle cases
(such as early RFCs) where there is no clear stream designation, etc.
I think this is what Olaf meant.

The current unitary RFC Editor does the management (well, really,
Alice does it).

>Secondly I think
>that it should be the responsibility of each stream processing governing
>body to decide on how when and how errata should be managed or at least the
>policy of when and how errata should be accepted.  The mechanics would then
>seem to fall under the RFC Publisher for publishing the errata.

How and when they should be processed for that stream... yes, that is
exactly what the current draft Errata procedures document says.


>I would hope that the RFC Style Manual is actually being used by the RFC
>Production entity, not the publisher.

;-)


Bob Braden



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list