Thanks, John, for the update. Just a few points:
4.8. Formal IESG Review
Assuming this draft isn't intended to be a BCP, which would bring in a whole
other set of review considerations, I don't think it can *formally* define
an IESG process. I have suggest two changes for how to handle this:
1. Change the section title to "IESG Review"
2. Insert a disclaimer sentence such as
Note that this section does not constitute part of the formal IETF
process, which can only be modified by an approved BCP document.
4.10. Intellectual Property Rights
IPR provisions for independent submissions are as specified in the
material on RFC Editor submissions in BCP 78 [RFC3978] although that
material should eventually be migrated into a successor of this
document.
A similar point; in particular the last clause is more or less
editorialising about IETF process. I think it's sufficient to just
say
IPR provisions for independent submissions are currently specified in the
material on RFC Editor submissions in BCP 78 [RFC3978].
(I'm not against moving the material if there's a consensus to do that,
but it just doesn't seem we should say so right here.)
5. The Editorial Review Board
...
applied. However, to ensure the independence of the independent
submission process, the final decision to appoint (or not appoint)
Editorial Board members rests with the RFC Editor.
Shouldn't that be "decision to appoint (or not appoint) or retire..."?
Brian
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
