--On Friday, 03 November, 2006 20:15 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Brian, this all depends on what the IAB decides to do with it.
Option 1 is that the document is recast as my personal opinion
as to what the process should be, in which case this text is
clearly wrong. Option 2 is that the IAB takes it over. If that
happens, then the IAB, it seems to me, is permitted to specify,
in conjunction with the RFC Editor, what the RFC Editor does
and, in particular, what the RFC Editor does with any input it
gets, including from the IESG. And the third possibility is
that it, in fact, heads toward being a BCP.
So, fwiw, ...
> I have suggest two changes for how to handle
> this:
>
> 1. Change the section title to "IESG Review"
That is where it started. The difficulty is that there are two
points at which review by the IESG can occur. The first, which
I am pleased to see is increasingly being used, involves the RFC
Editor looking at a document and saying "this is probably a
conflict" and asking the relevant AD or the IESG more generally
to comment before any significant resources are spent on
technical or editorial review. And the second is the review
that is, uh, formally called for by 2026 and 3932.
> 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.)
The obvious difficulty is that 3978, iir, handwaves around this
situation, more or less indicating that the RFC Editor can and
should make up rules and publish them. From a "formal"
procedural standpoint, the IETF can't make IPR policies for the
RFC Editor. ISOC presumably could or could have, which might
mean that the IAOC (aka IETF Trust) could except that this would
be policy and the IAOC doesn't make policy, and, at least as
I've understood things, the IAB clearly can. But...
Informally, I hope that we don't get to the point at which that
level of procedural hair-splitting is necessary, but it was that
informal spirit in which the text was written.
>> 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..."?
Probably some "serve at pleasure" language would be appropriate.
That was certainly the intent.
best,
john
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
