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

[Fred Baker]

Actually, the reason the IESG is reviewing them is a combination of review 
and process review. The RFC Editor's office routinely decides to not 
publish documents without other input; when the RFC Editor thinks they 
might publish one, they run it by the IESG in case there are process 
end-runs (people bypassing a working group in an apparent attempt to jump a 
market or to avoid having to work out a consensus), and for whatever other 
comments the IESG might have.

In such cases, the IESG is not reviewing outside the IETF process per se, 
but ensuring that the documents being published are in fact outside the 
process.

At 02:36 PM 12/16/2002 -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
>On 12/12/02 at 8:40 PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>The RFC Editor is *already* doing substantial review work on documents 
>outside the IETF process. Unfortunately for the IETF, to accomplish this, 
>the RFC Editor has chosen to use the (already overburdened) IESG to do a 
>full technical review of these documents during its "ensure that its not 
>circumventing the standards process" vetting. This is not what is supposed 
>to happen according to 2026 section 4.2.3:
>
>>The RFC Editor is expected to exercise his or her judgment concerning the 
>>editorial suitability of a document for publication with Experimental or 
>>Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in the 
>>expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet activity or 
>>falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for RFCs.
>
>If you don't think the RFC Editor can do the above because of its current 
>funding situation, then change 2026 to reflect the current reality. My 
>guess is that you will not find consensus in the IETF to do so since it 
>means officially giving the responsibility to the IESG. However, it's also 
>possible that the RFC Editor can get a different set of volunteers (other 
>than the IESG) to do the technical review required by 2026 section 4.2.3. 
>Alternatively, the RFC Editor can simply stop accepting submissions from 
>other than the IESG. Not only will that require a change to 2026, but I 
>think it likely that it will not make people in the IAB and IRTF any happier.
>
>In any case, my point is still that the IESG ought not be the ones doing 
>the full technical review of documents that 2026 specifically says should 
>be done by the RFC Editor.
>--
>Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com>
>QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102