[rfc-i] Problems and requirements for RFC Format

SM sm at resistor.net
Sun Apr 22 16:59:22 PDT 2012

At 12:53 22-04-2012, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>Whatever the rules may be, the reality is that the IESG sets the 
>rules for I-Ds, and the combination of the tools team (for automated 
>submission) and the secretariat (for manual submission) enforce the rules.

Yes, well, that's how it has worked.

At 13:11 22-04-2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
>This makes the other streams subservient to the IETF stream, which 
>strikes me as inappropriate.  That yuor summary does reflect current 
>reality does not make it appropriate policy.


>An alternative to consider is to have all of the streams provide a 
>collective, single policy for I-Ds, administered, say, by the RFC Editor...

That is covered in RFC 4844.

If the streams would like to forfeit there standing, it is their 
decision to make.  I assume that they find the repercussions acceptable.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list