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

[Brian E Carpenter]

Pete, as I already said once (but people *really* need
to take this on board), ISOC funds the RFC Editor in
support of the Internet standards process. 

Logically, therefore, if you are proposing that the RFC Editor
does substantial review work on documents outside the IETF
process, you also need to propose the source of funding for
that work. 

   Brian

Pete Resnick wrote:
> 
> 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