Subject: Re: [Techspec] Additional comment on draft-mankin-pub-req-08

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:41:11 -0400

(resending a slightly modified version from the correct address
-- sorry)

--On Monday, 12 June, 2006 18:19 +0100 Elwyn Davies
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I appreciate that the last call is strictly over, but one
> extra point came to mind when considering
> draft-iab-rfc-editor-00.
> 
> The requirements in draft-mankin split into two parts:
> - Those that are specific to the IETF document 'stream' -
> most;y the 'front end' of the process
> - Those that apply mainly to the back end of the process and
> are relevant to any documents that are published by the RFC
> Editor
> 
> For convenience when specifying requirements for IAB and IRTF
> documents etc it would be helpful if the two types of
> requirements were split into separate sections for easier
> cross referencing.

Elwyn,

This is, of course, one of the meta-problems with the document
that several of us have tried to point out in different ways.
The community has been repeatedly assured that it applies _only_
to the IETF document stream.  If that is true, then the material
you describe as "generic" is advisory at best.  At worst, it
needs separate evaluation via other processes.

If it is not true, then the document needs an entirely different
type of review and the IESG may not be an appropriate body to
manage that review.

Of course, those comments don't make your suggestion about
reorganizing the document and clearly identifying applicability
any less useful.

       john

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

---

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:00:23 +0100

> needs separate evaluation via other processes.
Indeed.  Any use of these requirements by another document stream than 
the IETF one is entirely a matter for the specifiers of that stream.

We probably have four different streams and the 'generic' stuff would 
not, AFAICS, be contentious for the IRTF and IAB streams - they 
currently take essentially the same post-approval path as the IETF 
stream.  The main object of this exercise was to make it easier to write 
any additional requirements for the IRTF and IAB streams without having 
to duplicate things unnecessarily.

/Elwyn

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:11:28 +0200

I think this is a positioning matter.

This draft is indeed an IETF work product and talks about
IETF requirements. Whether the other publication streams
identified in draft-iab-rfc-editor choose to adopt these
requirements is their business. As Elwyn said (just before
leaving on vacation, btw) the document *could* be reorganised
to suggest which are generic and which are IETF-specific.
But as long as it's an IETF document, that could only be
a suggestion. Given the timeline we're working to, I
personally wouldn't recommend major surgery on the document
for that purpose.

    Brian