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

[Dave CROCKER <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

> > > >  I am under
> > > the understanding the the IESG Note in RFC is provided by the IESG not
> > > by the RFC Editor. Is there a document that says otherwise? (I'm
> > > certainly open to the possibility that perhaps these documents should
> > > not have an IESG note but that seems a different issue)
> > My understanding of this text is that the IESG can recommend text,
> > including an IESG Note.  The RFC Editor can accept it or not.  
...
> I'm pretty sure, though, that there has been pushback and negotiation
> on quite a few occasions. It's important that the RFC Editor keeps
> this power, in the general interest of checks and balances. 


+1.

One can debate various details and costs about the RFC Editor function.  But it 
really is quite useful to have the editor exert an independent review of IESG 
efforts to modify an RFC.

Not because the IESG is suspect, but because it is deeply involved in the topics 
it comments on and that could cause misguided decisions.  By contrast, the RFC 
Editor can consider suggested IESG notes with detachment.

My impression, too, is that this has produced revised IESG text.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net