*> OLD:
*> o Documents considered by IETF Working Groups but not standardized.
*> While many documents of this type are published via the IESG
*> approval path (see RFC 3932, Section 1 [RFC3932]), the independent
*> submission path has traditionally been open to them. Because of
*> their intimate connection to the IETF Standards Process and WG
*> activites and the consequent sensitivity to exact statements of
*> relationships and to timing, there is reason to believe that all
*> such documents should be published only at IESG request. In any
*> event, these documents are published for the historical record.
*> NEW:
*> o Documents considered by IETF Working Groups but not standardized.
*> While many documents of this type are still published in the IETF
*> document stream [RFC2026,draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines] as
*> Informational or Experimental RFCs, the independent submission
*> path has traditionally been open to them as well. However, because
*> of their intimate connection to the IETF Standards Process
*> and WG activites and the consequent sensitivity to exact
*> statements of
*> relationships and to timing, there is reason to believe that such
*> documents should normally be published via the IETF stream. In
*> any event, these documents are published for the historical record.
*>
This is an issue that arises often in practice, so we need to be very
clear about what we mean. What do we mean by "considered", and exactly
what question does the RFC Editor need to ask an author to find out if
a new independent submission has been tainted forever by being
"considered" by some working group?
The lawyer-wannabes here abouts might also ponder whether this
proscription is a bit wierd in the context of the list of bullets
in section 2. Paraphrasing a bit,
"Here is a list of things independent submissions
are good for...
o ex-IETF technologies
o important new ideas
o informational discussions
o vendor-specific descriptions
o Road-not-travelled in WG -- oops, no sorry, they are NOT
good for this.
o satirical materials [a self reference???]
o .... "
Bob Braden
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
