Re: Last Call: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis (IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions) to BCP

[SM <sm at resistor.net>]

At 07:02 21-10-2008, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
>
> - 'IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream
>    Submissions '
>    <draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-04.txt> as a BCP
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the

I'm commenting on draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-05 as that's the 
latest version at the moment.

In Section 1:

  "These RFCs, and any other Informational or Experimental standards-related
   documents, are reviewed by appropriate IETF bodies and published as part of
   the IETF Stream."

I read that as Informational and Experimental are also 
standards-related.   This is at odds with statements such as "This 
memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." which is 
usually seen in Informational and Experimental documents.

Although most people know what WG is, it doesn't hurt to have the 
following for clarity:

  This review was often a full-scale  review of technical content, with the
  Area Director (ADs) attempting to clear points with the authors, stimulate
  revisions of the documents, encourage the authors to contact appropriate
  working groups (WG) and so on.

In Section 3:

  "3. The IESG finds that publication is harmful to the IETF work done
      in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the document at this time."

I don't think that harmful is appropriate here.  I gather that the 
aim is to prevent circumvention of the IETF process and conflicts 
with work being carried out by the Working Group.

It could be phrased as:

    The IESG finds that this work is related to IETF work done in WG <X>
    and recommends not publishing the document at this time.

  "5. The IESG finds that this document extends an IETF protocol in a
      way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
      published without IETF review and IESG approval."

I read that as "we cannot publish this document as it requires IETF 
review and IESG approval".  It may be easier for all parties to ask 
for an IETF review instead of rejecting publication outright.

  "The IESG assumes that the RFC Editor, in agreement with the IAB, will
   manage mechanisms for appropriate technical review of independent
   submissions. Likewise, the IESG also assumes that the IRSG, in
   agreement with the IAB, will manage mechanisms for appropriate
   technical review of IRTF submissions."

I don't see why there has to be assumptions here.  I suggest dropping 
the "assumes" and clearly spell out who is going to manage what.

Regards,
-sm 

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