On 2006-12-28 23:31, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:"Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor" http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-klensin-rfc-independent-05.txtThere are some "historically" in this text, where my interpretations of "not more relevant" or "not more true" don't fit. It starts in chapter 1.1, the given definitions of "independent submission" and "individual submission" are fine, not only "historically". In chapter 2 the "historically" starts to worry me: | o Technical contributions (e.g., RFC 1810 [RFC1810]) and, | historically, | o RFC Editor and, at least prior to the handoff between ISI and | ICANN and the June 2000 MOU [RFC2860], IANA Policy Statements | (e.g., [RFC2223] and RFC 1591 [RFC1591]). They (RfC-editor + ICANN) should be free to continue this tradition. Important texts like 2223bis.08 available "only" as I-D aren't ideal.
The text doesn't prevent the RFC Editor from submitting an Independent Submission to itself, or IANA from submitting one. So I don't see any restriction introduced by the factual "historically." I would be against creating explicit "document streams" for the RFC Editor or IANA; it's complicated enough already. I would also argue that neither of the examples are good ones for the future. RFC 2223 is procedural material that should be easy to update - ideal for an ION. RFC 1591 is a wonderful document, but unfortunately the world went mad the year after it was published, and I don't ever expect to see a 1591bis. Brian _______________________________________________ INDEPENDENT mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
