On 2009-08-28 03:56, Russ Housley wrote:
>
>>> RFC4846 section 5 uses the word "recommend"
>>> If the IESG, after completing its review, identifies issues, it may
>>> recommend explanatory or qualifying text for the RFC Editor to
>>> include in the document if it is published.
>>
>> Olaf, I believe this means in the contents of the document. I am under
>> the understanding the the IESG Note in RFC is provided by the IESG not
>> by the RFC Editor. Is there a document that says otherwise? (I'm
>> certainly open to the possibility that perhaps these documents should
>> not have an IESG note but that seems a different issue)
>
> My understanding of this text is that the IESG can recommend text,
> including an IESG Note. The RFC Editor can accept it or not. The RFC
> Editor has a lot of discretion here. To date, the RFC Editor has never
> rejected an IESG Note.
I'm pretty sure, though, that there has been pushback and negotiation
on quite a few occasions. It's important that the RFC Editor keeps
this power, in the general interest of checks and balances. By the time
an RFC comes out, it's too late for an appeal process to affect the
outcome. So I find the current text of 3932bis completely appropriate.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
