--On Tuesday, 23 January, 2007 18:06 +0200 Jari Arkko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ... However, many of us believe that it is very important
>> that the RFC Editor be permitted to publish documents that are
>> highly critical of IETF conclusions and, indeed, of the IETF.
>> That requirement implies not giving the IESG any sort of "DNP"
>> veto power.
>>
> Sure. But I was not commenting on the lack of veto
> power. I was commenting on the inconsistency between
> two document parts. I think its fine if the RFC Editor
> makes its own decision about the publication, having gotten
> IESG's input. That's what "independent" means.
> But your Section 4.8 and the current RFC 3932
> implies that the IESG has the ability to provide the "DNP"
> input. I think that ability should be retained, and reflected
> in the same manner in Sections 2 and 4.8.
We agree that it should be fixed.
I was just trying to stimulate some discussion about what the
fix should be.
john
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
