At Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Bob Braden wrote: > > > 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.
I can't speak for the community, but at least speaking for me, I don't like it much. It's not something I'm ready to go to the mat on, but if there was a button that said "stop doing that", I would push it. -Ekr _______________________________________________ INDEPENDENT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
