Info/exptl RFCs [Re: Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking)

[Pete Resnick]

On 12/10/02 at 2:32 PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

>Perhaps we need to seriously reconsider why we need non-IETF
>informational RFC's.  On the one hand, I believe that if we do have
>them, the IESG MUST give them the same level of review as other IETF
>documents, or else they will be used as an end-run around the
>standards process.

I disagree completely. The IESG MUST review doucments to see if they 
are being used as an end-run around the standards process. That is 
not even *remotely* close (or at least shouldn't be remotely close) 
to the level of review given to IETF documents. They should not be 
checking for editorial nits; they should not be checking for 
technical correctness; they should not be checking for security 
considerations. The RFC Editor should be doing that, and the RFC 
Editor can get that information from experts other than the IESG. 
(There are *plenty* of competent folks in the IETF and other 
standards bodies to whom the RFC Editor can talk.) The IESG is there 
to manage *IETF* processes and documents. The RFC Editor can find 
other people to help it.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102