[rfc-i] My comments on http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.txt

Leslie Daigle leslie at thinkingcat.com
Mon Nov 15 12:31:09 PST 2010

Hi Joel,

Indeed:  the TRSE's recommendations can be published as an RFC.

But that is a separate point from whether that needs to be the 
discussion document to develop the specification for the RFC Editor model.

Put another way:  I think much of the friction here comes from trying to 
_make_ Glenn's recommendation the _same_thing_ as the community 
perspective.    In the end -- will we know what is Glenn's 
recommendation and what is community consensus?


Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> (Eliding a number of interesting points that require cogitation...)
> With regard to the point below, remember that the TRSE was specifically 
> charged to make a recommendation.  He is, as one would hope, putting 
> that recommendation in the form of an I-D, and discussing it with the 
> community.  Given that he is charged with making the recommendation, I 
> do not see how anyone else can own that document.  (Also, since what is 
> called for is his recommendation, it will then be up to the IAB to 
> decide how that recommendation fits with what the IAB understands to be 
> the needs and wants of the community.)
> Yours,
> Joel
> On 11/15/2010 11:54 AM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>> 3/ It is not clear to me that the TRSE has to be the editor of that
>> discussion document:  expertise in writing a discussion document is
>> what's needed here, and the TRSE expertise is _input_ to that document.


      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie at thinkingcat.com

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list