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

[Pete Resnick]

On 12/16/02 at 12:54 PM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:

>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.

I will repeat for the umpteenth time that I do not object to the 
process review and agree that the IESG should be reviewing to "ensure 
that the documents are in fact outside the process." I object to the 
"combination of review and process review" whereby we get "whatever 
other comments the IESG might have." Where in 2026 (or any other 
document) does the IESG have the responsibility to give technical 
review to such documents? It's certainly nice of them to do this 
additional work for the RFC Editor, but given that we're talking 
about workload problems for the IESG, it seems like it would be good 
to get something off of their plates that is clearly somebody else's 
responsibility according to RFC 2026.
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102