[rfc-i] path forward with RFC 3932bis
falk at bbn.com
Mon Sep 21 11:22:07 PDT 2009
The draft says:
The RFC Editor reviews Independent Submission Stream submissions for
suitability for publication as RFCs. As described in RFC 4846 [I3],
the RFC Editor asks the IESG to review the documents for conflicts
with the IETF standards process or work done in the IETF community.
Similarly, documents intended for publication as part of the IRTF
Stream are sent to the IESG for review for conflicts with the IETF
standards process or work done in the IETF community [I2].
I'm concerned about the phrase "or work done in the IETF community."
Unbound it can cover much, much more than IETF standards work. In fact,
one could make the case that it covers the IRTF (since much IRTF work is
done in the standards community. I don't believe IESG review should
cover conflicts in the IRTF (or IAB or IETF Trust or ISOC or with other
Independent Submissions authors...) The IESG's authority in this
paragraphs derives from RFC2026 which is pretty clear:
To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational
designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards
Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor
will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or
Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor,
may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the
I'd like to see the phrase in question removed or perhaps clarified (say
to include planned standards work or some such).
Internet Research Task Force
More information about the rfc-interest