John, Bob -- I agree with you but I have difficulties in coming up with exact rules, and I'd rather not have a very hard rule anyway since ultimately its a judgment call whether the document has really been in the IETF process. So unless you have some specific text suggestion that we could look at, I don't know what else we could write.
I do think, however, that with the "should normally" it is very clear for the authors where to seek publication first. Jari John C Klensin kirjoitti: > --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
