--On Monday, 05 March, 2007 09:31 -0800 Bob Braden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> *> 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
>...
> 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?
I agree with Bob that we have a delicate issue here and that we
should be careful to avoid text that locks us into a place where
we don't want to be.
I believe that it is essential to the independent submission
process and to the community that the RFC Editor be able to
publish documents that the IESG and/or some IETF WG doesn't like
even after they have "considered" them. I believe that such
documents should be held to a very high standard for clarity of
role in order to be published as independent submissions, but
that it is important that it be possible for an author and the
RFC Editor to respond to an IESG comment equivalent to "The
foobar WG looked at this and considered it A Bad Idea, so Do Not
Publish" by revising the document to make the differences of
opinion clear and then publishing it as a dissent.
I think that a document that is developed by a WG, or developed
as input to a WG, should go to the IESG for sponsorship first,
both as a "right of first refusal" basis and as a matter of
efficiency. But, if the ADs decline to sponsor the document,
and it is clear from the text that it is not an IETF
standards-track document or a candidate for such standardization
(and, ideally, why), nothing should prevent its submission and
processing on the "independent" path.
I don't have a strong opinion as to whether "should normally" in
the proposed text above is sufficient to cover those cases, but
I suspect that we should attempt to be little bit more clear.
john
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
