Re: [INDEP] Re: FYI: Last Call for "Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor"

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

On 2006-12-28 23:31, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:
>
> >     "Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor"
> >     http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-klensin-rfc-independent-05.txt
>
> There are some "historically" in this text, where my interpretations
> of "not more relevant" or "not more true" don't fit.  It starts in
> chapter 1.1, the given definitions of "independent submission" and
> "individual submission" are fine, not only "historically".
>
> In chapter 2 the "historically" starts to worry me:
>
> |  o  Technical contributions (e.g., RFC 1810 [RFC1810]) and,
> |     historically,
> |  o  RFC Editor and, at least prior to the handoff between ISI and
> |     ICANN and the June 2000 MOU [RFC2860], IANA Policy Statements
> |     (e.g., [RFC2223] and RFC 1591 [RFC1591]).
>
> They (RfC-editor + ICANN) should be free to continue this tradition.
> Important texts like 2223bis.08 available "only" as I-D aren't ideal.

The text doesn't prevent the RFC Editor from submitting an Independent
Submission to itself, or IANA from submitting one. So I don't see
any restriction introduced by the factual "historically." I would be
against creating explicit "document streams" for the RFC Editor or
IANA; it's complicated enough already.

I would also argue that neither of the examples are good ones for
the future. RFC 2223 is procedural material that should be easy
to update - ideal for an ION. RFC 1591 is a wonderful document,
but unfortunately the world went mad the year after it was published,
and I don't ever expect to see a 1591bis.

   Brian

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