fwiw - this works for me
---
From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'The IESG and RFC Editor documents:
Procedures' to BCP
--On Monday, May 10, 2004 10:57 AM -0400 Scott Bradner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> note that I just used the words that were there - do you
> suggest leaving teh words as they are? if not, maybe you can
> suggest something better
I guess that, before, the text was sufficiently muddy that I
didn't catch the real problem, so thanks for trying to clarify
it :-(.
Perhaps it should say something like...
o Special rules exist for some documents, including
IAB
documents and April 1st RFCs, and republication of
documents from other SDOs. In some cases, these rules
exist because the RFC Editor reports to the IAB on
policy and strategy matters. The IESG and the RFC
Editor keep a running dialogue, in consultation with the
IAB, on other documents and classification of them.
I think that represents the current situation and agreements,
and assume that the other text was just confusing. As you
know, quite a lot of anguish has gone into this topic area in
the past. It would be, IMO, a mistake to even reopen the issue
unless there is compelling need to do so.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
