Re: Last Call: 'The IESG and RFC Editor documents: Procedures' to BCP

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Monday, May 10, 2004 9:33 AM -0400 Scott Bradner 
<sob at harvard.edu> wrote:

> looks good to me - one suggestion of clearer language and a
> potential addition
>
> >   o  Documents for which special rules exist, including IAB
> >   documents and April 1st RFCs, and republication of
> >      documents from other SDOs - the IESG and the RFC Editor
> >      keep a running dialogue on which documents these are
>
> awkward wording - maybe you want to say
>
>    o  The IESG and the RFC Editor keep a running dialogue on
> which         documents require special rules (for example,
> IAB documents,         April 1st RFCs, and republication of
> documents from other SDOs)

Scott, while I agree that the current language is not optimal, I 
don't think the above is the right fix.   The whole point of the 
agreements about publication of IAB documents is that the RFC 
Editor reports, from an overall policy and strategy standpoint, 
with the IAB.  Turning that situation into "the IESG and the RFC 
Editor keep a running dialogue" rather dramatically revises (or 
confuses) that situation.

   john

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf