Dear hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz, You wrote: *> *> Thanks for info. Some quick observations while looking at the *> picture of your model: You don't cover the rather convoluted *> interactions between IESG and "ISS", to fix that please sort
See RFC 3932. *> the "stream" columns like that: IAB | IETF | community | IRTF. I am not aware of any implied ordering, and I don't know what it would mean. *> *> RFC number assignment should be the privilege of the RFC editor, *> not of some "outsourced" RFC production entity. This used to be *> great magic in the past, and it is a completely subjective magic. It is not a "privilege", but a duty. And not exactly magic, but the community likes it that RFC 2822 was an update to RFC 822, for example. Not an accident, though Joyce used to like to pretend it was. The RFC Editor organization believes that RFC number assignment is inextricably bound with the production process, so it would make little sense to separate these functions. This assumes that the RFC publication model continues to use late binding for RFC numbers, as it always has. Another choice (which I believe has some serious flaws) would be to change to early RFC number binding -- say, RFC numbers are assigned by the IESG before the document enters the publication process. The IESG could go as far as it wanted towards structuring the number space (and how long would it be before a Dewey decimal numbering scheme appeared?). Bob Braden _______________________________________________ INDEPENDENT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
