[rfc-i] path forward with RFC 3932bis

Jim Schaad ietf at augustcellars.com
Mon Sep 21 10:29:20 PDT 2009


Ok - the problem I have, and the reason that I asked, is that it is not
clear to me that the Independent Series Editor (ISE) is part of the RFC
Editor any more than the ISRG is going to be.  Thus it is the ISE not the
RFC Editor that will be asking for the IESG to review documents in the
future.  The first level of negotiations would be between the ISE and the
ISEG, the second level would add the RSE and the final level would be the
IAB.

This change from the RFC Editor processing independent submissions to an ISE
doing the same thing - with an additional layer of possible internal review
from the RSE - is not reflected in the document.

Jim




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:06 AM
> To: Jim Schaad
> Cc: 'IETF Discussion'; 'RFC Interest'; 'IAB'; 'Olaf M. Kolkman';
> 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; 'Russ Housley'
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] path forward with RFC 3932bis
> 
> Jim,
> 
> > Is there a reason that RFC 5620 (RFC Editor Model Version 1) has not
> been
> > taken into account while doing this update?  It would seem that this
> could
> > change some of the processes from what they are today.
> >
> I think we have taken it into account, or can you describe more exactly
> what issue you are thinking of?
> 
> In my e-mail, I explained that our proposed resolution can be thought
> of
> as an additional process rule on top of 5620 and other relevant RFCs.
> There are alternative resolutions that can be expressed purely as
> applications of 5620, but they may have other downsides.
> 
> But the bottom line is that I think we should avoid focusing too much
> on
> what can be done. If the community (IETF, IAB, outside) wants a
> particular model, we should pick that and get it over with. With this
> in
> mind, what would you Jim like to see as the end result?
> 
> Jari




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list