[rfc-i] headers and boilerplates last minute proposal

SM sm at resistor.net
Wed Mar 11 08:16:39 PDT 2009


At 09:27 09-03-2009, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>However, I believe the proposed text is too vague, and subject to
>misinterpretation.  Reading it without the context that created it, this
>reads to me as saying "Despite the fact that this looks like a
>specification, it isn't;  and any and all parts of it may change
>randomly and without the kind of community discussion that lead to this
>version."

According to draft-iab-rfc-editor-model-04, the RFC Editor is responsible for:

   "Developing, maintaining, and publishing the RFC Style Manual
    publication for use by authors, editors, and the RFC publisher"

The final say rests with the RFC (Series) Editor.

>The document already indicated where the RFC Editor had final say over
>wording, and indicated that such wording was "initial values".  If the

If the IAB expects the RFC (Series) Editor to fulfill its 
responsibilities, it should not get into all the details of where the 
RFC Editor has final say in regards to the RFC Style Manual.

>Page layouts were discussed considerably on this list, at least to the
>extent of determining which parts were headers and which were elsewhere
>in boilerplate (or, even, not in boilerplate).  While I certainly
>acknowledge that the RFC Editor should have the ability to adjust the
>series, it is important to indicate how the import of the opinions
>expressed in this discussion will be factored into future changes.

It is important to delineate the responsibilities.  I posted some 
comments about the Abstract section.  It is up to the RFC Editor to 
consider my comments and decide whether they should be incorporated 
in the RFC Style Manual or not.  Likewise, the RFC Editor will 
consider the opinion of the IAB.  Obviously, the latter carries more weight.

At 21:00 10-03-2009, John C Klensin wrote:
>Without trying to talk about the pieces into which it is
>proposed to split the RFC Editor, I think there is a fundamental
>tension here between "RFC Editor as an independent entity,
>working in partnership with the IAB and the various streams" and
>"RFC Editor as someone's employee / not-very-independent
>contractor, subject to very close direction and supervision".

One of the responsibilities of the RFC Editor is to exercise 
executive-level management.  That generally excludes "adult 
supervision".  Independence doesn't mean having a free hand.  There 
can be oversight or some other form of accountability.

Regards,
-sm 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list