--On Saturday, 27 January, 2007 17:14 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think we should overdesign process here. But to be
> clear, if a draft shows up at the RFC Editor named something
> like draft-AUTHOR-WGNAME-foobar or
> draft-AUTHOR-PROTOCOLNAME-foobar
> then a check on the IETF side before serious ISR review
> really seems like common sense. And if experience shows
> that private notes to the relevant AD get lost, then we should
> use a common sense way of getting it on the IESG's radar.
>
> For IANA, we've recently encouraged them to directly add items
> to the IESG agenda when they need our attention. There's no
> reason we can't do the same for the RFC Editor, without
> launching
> a premature RFC 3932 review. This doesn't need rules, IMHO.
> It's Management 101 stuff.
Ok. Let me make a suggestion as participant, not editor. If we
can agree on the outline of the principle, we can then try to
get the text right. I think this discussion suggests that we
do two things:
(1) We modify the "steps" in the documented review process to
remove the formal IESG review (aka the RFC 3932 review) from the
sequence. We leave the requirement for that review there, but
place the point at which it is requested at the discretion of
the RFC Editor on a document by document basis. If it seems
necessary to anyone, we also add very general language that
guides the RFC Editor to request that review at a time that
seems optimal from the standpoint of conserving both IESG and
RFC Editor time and noting that the initiation of an RFC 3932
review does not _require_ that work on the document stop until
the IESG responds.
(2) We encourage the IESG and the RFC Editor to develop
less-formal arrangements, on an ongoing basis, that are intended
to make things go more smoothly and efficiently. I would
think that such arrangements might include:
* provisions for the IESG to tell the RFC Editor "this
doesn't look to us like the right time to do a 3932
review on this document for the following reasons, would
you be willing to ask again later"
* arrangements, such as the one Brian's note implies,
for the RFC Editor to ask the IESG for preliminary
comments on draft-AUTHOR-WGNAME-foobar or
draft-AUTHOR-PROTOCOLNAME-foobar documents (or things
that look like them no matter how they are named). I
would assume that the IESG could respond to such a
request with "we want to take this over", "please
initiate the 3932 review right now", "no obvious
problems, proceed as normal", or any amount of informal
free advice or background.
* ways for the RFC Editor to put something on the IESG
agenda, as Brian suggests, whether it is related to a
specific document or some more general principle.
There are probably others. In my personal opinion, it would be
stupid to try to write the things in the second category down. I
would hope the "independent" document (and the IAB RFC Editor
document, etc.) don't even need to say that informal
communications and arrangements are possible and encouraged.
But, if that much needs to be said, let's say it and move on.
As I have said many times in the year these discussions have
been going on, I think we all succeed to the degree that the RFC
process can be seen as a collaboration and partnership between
the RFC Editor and the various parties in the IAB/ IESG/ IAOC/
and general IETF groupings. If we can do that, and everyone
behaves reasonably at least most of the time and assumes
everyone else will to, then we can sort most of the details out
on an ongoing basis without needing a lot of specific procedural
rules. If we cannot, but instead have to get into battles about
who can give directions to whom, specific procedural rules
aren't going to save us from the fate we will probably deserve.
john
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
