[rfc-i] RFC Editor Model Final Version?
ietf at augustcellars.com
Wed Sep 10 06:10:40 PDT 2008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Braden [mailto:braden at ISI.EDU]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 10:50 PM
> To: Jim Schaad; 'Olaf Kolkman'; 'RFC Interest'
> Cc: 'IAOC Jabberr'; iab at iab.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] RFC Editor Model Final Version?
> >It is not clear to me why the RFC errata process is under the
> >of the RFC editor. First there is a conflict as the Independent
> >Editor is responsible for that stream's errata processing.
> There is a distinction between managing the overall process and
> a particular stream. For each stream, someone is responsible for
> verifying or rejecting each errata report for an RFC in that stream.
> 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).
I still think this should be called out differently in the document. I
think that the RFC Editor should perhaps defined what the process is, but it
would seem that only for early RFCs would the RFC editor be responsible for
managing the actual approval process.
I took the text as saying that the RFC editor was responsible for dealing
with all of the errata.
> >Secondly I think
> >that it should be the responsibility of each stream processing
> >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
> >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
> >Production entity, not the publisher.
> Bob Braden
More information about the rfc-interest