At 07:02 21-10-2008, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream
Submissions '
<draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-04.txt> as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
I'm commenting on draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-05 as that's the
latest version at the moment.
In Section 1:
"These RFCs, and any other Informational or Experimental standards-related
documents, are reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of
the IETF Stream."
I read that as Informational and Experimental are also
standards-related. This is at odds with statements such as "This
memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." which is
usually seen in Informational and Experimental documents.
Although most people know what WG is, it doesn't hurt to have the
following for clarity:
This review was often a full-scale review of technical content, with the
Area Director (ADs) attempting to clear points with the authors, stimulate
revisions of the documents, encourage the authors to contact appropriate
working groups (WG) and so on.
In Section 3:
"3. The IESG finds that publication is harmful to the IETF work done
in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the document at this time."
I don't think that harmful is appropriate here. I gather that the
aim is to prevent circumvention of the IETF process and conflicts
with work being carried out by the Working Group.
It could be phrased as:
The IESG finds that this work is related to IETF work done in WG <X>
and recommends not publishing the document at this time.
"5. The IESG finds that this document extends an IETF protocol in a
way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
published without IETF review and IESG approval."
I read that as "we cannot publish this document as it requires IETF
review and IESG approval". It may be easier for all parties to ask
for an IETF review instead of rejecting publication outright.
"The IESG assumes that the RFC Editor, in agreement with the IAB, will
manage mechanisms for appropriate technical review of independent
submissions. Likewise, the IESG also assumes that the IRSG, in
agreement with the IAB, will manage mechanisms for appropriate
technical review of IRTF submissions."
I don't see why there has to be assumptions here. I suggest dropping
the "assumes" and clearly spell out who is going to manage what.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
