I think it is important to the openness of the process to maintain the
tradition of a relatively light editorial hand on Informational RFCs
that document non-IETF protocols. The minimal substantive part of
this review increasingly seems to be done by the IESG instead of the
RFC Editor.
From: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <v04210102b49844c2f1c5@[192.168.0.1]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 20:43:21 -0500
>OK Paul, lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your
>assertions below are absolutely right. Please explain then why it
>should become an informational RFC without having the comments of the
>RAB members attached to it? (Even though as Patrick said it is not
>common practice to do this with an informational rfc). ....
Although extremely brief RFC-Editor/IESG comments (as in one or two
sentences) are sometimes included in a non-IETF Informational RFC, I
know of no case in which some third party's general comments have been
included. Such third parties can write up their comments as a
separate Informational document and submit it to the RFC Editor for
publication if they want.
>Is it really the position of the IESG that they have NO obligation to
>do anything to inform the unwary that this protocol is an invitation
>for lawsuits against NSI, against ICANN, and possibly against the
>IETF on the grounds that the RFC publication was perceived by the
>clueless party as an endorsement?
To the extent that the IESG undertook to do a detailed quality review
of non-IETF Informational RFC protocols and includes the results of
such a review in the RFC, it would thereby assume legal liability.
The way to avoid such liability is maintain as minimal a review as
possible.
> ....
Donald
===================================================================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1 914-276-2668 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
65 Shindegan Hill Rd, RR#1
Carmel, NY 10512 USA
