[rfc-i] path forward with RFC 3932bis

Aaron Falk 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
   IETF community.

I'd like to see the phrase in question removed or perhaps clarified (say
to include planned standards work or some such).


Aaron Falk
Internet Research Task Force

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list