Subject: Individual submissions [was: [Techspec] New version of mankin-pu b-req available]

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:34:08 +0100

I think we have a Potential requirement that individual submissions
be separate from IETF submitted documents and that those individual
submissions do not belong in the "IETF Technical Publication process"
Or to word it positive:

 Potential requirement: Only IETF submitted documents (i.e. through
 the IESG, IAB or IRTF) are part of the IETF Publication Process

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS)
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 22:03
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Techspec] New version of mankin-pub-req available
> 
> 
> The -02 version of the technical publication requirements is 
> available at 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mankin-pub-req-02.tx
> t.  It is an extensive rewrite of the -01 version with an eye 
> to taking a more systematic approach.  The new version is 
> basically a laundry list of requirements (both current and 
> potential) against a technical publisher.  The goal is to 
> provide a framework in which we can decide what the IETF 
> wants a technical publisher to do and what level of 
> performance we want to see.
> 
> Comments eagerly awaited.
> 
> Stephen Hayes
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Techspec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
> 

_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:33:02 +0100

Bert,

>  the IESG, IAB or IRTF) are part of the IETF Publication Process

Personal comments:

Since you raise it, I'd like to take a slightly different cut.
Your statement isn't really a requirement, in fact.

There are good reasons to have a publication process that bypasses
IESG approval - it's one of the checks and balances in our system.
In fact, it has its own built-in check and balance, RFC 3932.

However, as the need for RFC 3932 shows, it's really illusory to
pretend that it's completely separate from the IETF community and
its processes. So I would suggest a new process.

1. There should be a process by which technical specifications that have
not been submitted for approval by the IESG are published.

2. They may not be standards track or BCP.

3. They must be published first as I-Ds.

4. The IETF establishes an independent review board (IRB) for such
documents, whose reviews shall be published.

5. If the IRB wishes to publish a draft, it must submit it to the IESG, not
for  approval, but for review according to the criteria in RFC 3932
(non conflict with IETF work).

6. In the event the the IESG recommends against publication and the IRB
decides to publish, a note written by the IESG must be included.

7. After that the draft goes to the technical publisher just like
an IESG-approved draft.

     Brian

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:12:54 -0500

Actually -- the scope of this discussion is *IETF* documents.

So, it would be appropriate to define what IETF technical publications
are (i.e., include IAB/IRTF/individual to AD?).  But, we scoped
this discussion to specifically avoid  the handling of independent
individual submissions...

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:13:37 -0500

... rathole.

Last I checked, independent individual submissions were not
part of this discussion.

Leslie.

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:54:40 -0500 (EST)

> Last I checked, independent individual submissions were not

That's disappointing.

At the Vancouver meeting, I attempted to make the case that having a
lower-overhead archival publication track is important.  Something
like the RFC Editor's current ISR path (RFC3932) can help keep some of
the cruft out of the higher-overhead track -- in particular, it
provides a credible place for a WG to send work that the WG doesn't
have the resources or will to spend time on.

I think the existence of a lower-overhead archival publication
mechanism should be added to our requirements -- it needn't be the
current ISR/3932 process (though I think the ISR process could work),
it needn't be operated by the same entity that publishes IETF
documents (though it would make some amount of sense for it to be),
nor does it need to publish in the RFC series (though I'd prefer it
to) -- we just need the functionality.

I don't think we have to go into great depth about the details of the
lower-overhead archival track at this point, I just want its existence
to be documented as a requirement.

-- Sam