Subject: Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:59:22 -0500 (EST)

a few comments on the IESG proposal:

from draft-iesg-rfced-documents-00.txt
2. Background material

   The review of independent submissions by the IESG was prescribed by
   RFC 2026 [1] section 4.2.3 and RFC 2418 [2] section 8. RFC 3710 [3]
   section 5.2.2 describes the spring 2003 review process; with the
   publication of this document, that section is no longer relevant to
   documents submitted via the RFC Editor.

fwiw - I think that this proposal is completely compatible with the intent
of RFC 2026 section 4.2.3 and with the practice of the IESG at the time
that RFC 2026 was approved.

I do worry about the "harm to the Internet" case (e.g., a protocol which
will be used to transport large amounts of data but does not have any
congestion control ability) but I'm satisfied  with the process described
in this ID to bring any such issue to the attention of the RFC Editor and
rely on the RFC Editor to do the right thing as long as the RFC Editor
maintains the model of today (an independent technically competent 
group).  If that model changes this process might have to be reevaluated
as long as the RFC Editor contunues to have s part of its mission to
publish non-IETF documents (as I strongly think it should).

nit: I do not think that RFC 2418 sec 8 has anything to do with the topic
of RFC Editor documents and I think that reference should be removed from 
this document.

I think this is a good retro-move.

Scott

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:00:10 -0800

> publish non-IETF documents (as I strongly think it should).

I think we might want to begin thinking of these two functions (technical 
review and copy-editing) as two different functions, which are "joined at 
the hip" currently, but aren't necessarily so joined forever.....
> of RFC Editor documents and I think that reference should be removed from

not sure - 2418 sec 8 sentence 1 says "The IESG reviews all documents 
submitted for publication as RFCs". It might be intended as a shorthand for 
"all documents submitted by WGs for publication as RFCs" - but I knew that 
at the time of publication, all documents, including RFC Editor submissions 
and "individual submitted via AD", went through IESG review, so I thought 
it might mean what it said rather than what its context may seem to 
indicate...

Note: The changed IESG review of RFC Editor documents does NOT change the 
IESG review for individual submissions to the standards track or individual 
submission sponsored by an AD. These get full IESG technical review, as 
before.

> I think this is a good retro-move.

Seems good!

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:12:29 -0500 (EST)

> the hip" currently, but aren't necessarily so joined forever.....

agreed, but if they become disarticulated there will need to be
a solid way for the copy-editing/publishing part to relate to the
technical review part if the IESG is not there to act as a 2nd pass 
of technical review.

> so I thought

it is correct that its a true statement that the IESG reviews all RFCs (or
actually almost RFCs) pre-publication but rfc 2418 (including sec 8) 
only deals with WG documents so I do not think that you need a reference
to 2418 in this document

> submission sponsored by an AD. These get full IESG technical review, as 

I assumed that was the case

also WG informational and experimental documents I trust?

Scott

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 22:28:48 -0800

--On 27. mars 2004 13:12 -0500 Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Note: The changed IESG review of RFC Editor documents does NOT change
>> the  IESG review for individual submissions to the standards track or
>> individual  submission sponsored by an AD. These get full IESG technical
>> review, as  before.
>

yes!