[rfc-i] draft-iab-ise-model-03 comments

SM sm at resistor.net
Fri Oct 28 02:28:38 PDT 2011


Hi Ted,
At 12:25 26-10-2011, Ted Hardie wrote:
>The document currently says:
>
>
>    The Independent Submission Editor (ISE) is the head of the
>    Independent Submission Stream of RFCs, as defined by [RFC4844]
>I find the "is the head of the ... Stream" to sound a bit odd; 
>manages, edits, or is responsible for sound better to me.

Yes.

    The Independent Submission Editor (ISE) is the responsible for the
    Independent Submission Stream of RFCs [RFC4846].

I changed the reference to RFC 4846 as it offers a broader discussion 
of Independent Submissions.  BTW, RSOC should be expanded on first use.

   "The accountability of all RFC Streams Editors is to the body that
    appoints them - the Independent Stream and the Independent Submission
    Editor are not under the authority or direction of the RSE or the
    RSOC."

It's better to drop the accountability part of that sentence as the 
draft should not be discussing about other streams.

>The document currently says:
>
>    The Independent Submission Editor is an individual who may have
>    assistants and who is responsible for:
>At least in the past, a team could and did volunteer to serve; 
>whether they organized themselves as lead and assistants or equals 
>was not really the point.  I would suggest "is an individual or team 
>who is responsible for:"

The "may have assistants" was used previously to allow for more 
people to be added, should the need arise, without having to update 
the document defining the ISE (see Section 3.1 of RFC 5620).

>The document currently says that the ISE is responsible for:
>
>
>4.  Defining and developing the scope of the Independent Submission
>        stream.
>
>I believe I understand this meaning, but it probably needs something 
>that acknowledges that
>this development has to take place within the context of the overall 
>rfc-editor model.  The ISE
>obviously cannot determine that the independent submission stream 
>can contain Internet Standards.
>
>Perhaps "Defining and developing the scope of the Independent 
>Submission stream as a part of the
>overall RFC editor function (citation)"?

Section 2 of RFC 4846 discusses about the role of Independent 
Submissions.  Item 4 is a change from RFC 5620.  RFC 5742 is meant to 
avoid conflict between IETF and other streams.  As all this goes up 
to the IAB, it's unlikely that an attempt to add Internet Standards 
in the Independent Submissions Stream would be successful.  RFC 4846 
mentions an important principle:

   "seeks advice from the IESG about possible relationships and
    conflicts with IETF work"

That could be added to address your concern.

Regards,
-sm 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list