Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote:
The issue being discussed is whether the mankin-pub-req draft
...
It is recommended that:
1. The scope of pub-req be clarified
to indicate that it applies to documents within the IETF
family including IETF documents processed by the IESG, IAB
documents processed by the IETF, and IRTF documents processed
by the IRTF (other wording happily accepted).
IAB documents are generally reviewed by the community but
they don't go through formal IESG review (unless they
are BCPs); the IAB self-approves them. So I think you should
simply say "IAB documents,..."
I think for IRTF documents it would be more appropriate to
say "IRTF documents processed by the IRSG."
Brian
2. Ensure that these organizations which use the technical
publisher service have the opportunity to review
mankin-pub-req so that it represents the consensus of the
IETF family.
3. Modify section 5 to indicate that processes for working
with and feeding documents into the technical publisher needs
to be developed in the respective organizations, however
indicate that this will be documented in companion documents
which can be generated by the respective organizations.
4. Processes for arbitrating between competing resource
requests by organizations within the IETF family needs to be
dealt with, but mankin-pub-req does not seem like an
appropriate place for documenting the priorities. So this
would not be covered in mankin-pub-req.
Regards, Stephen
_______________________________________________ Techspec
mailing list [email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
