Types of informational documents (was: Re: what is a problem)

[John C Klensin]

--On Tuesday, 26 November, 2002 08:08 +0100 Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m
<paf@cisco.com> wrote:

> I see a couple of different Informational documents. Let me
> check with you if you see a difference between them:
>=20
>   - Individual submissions which the individual sent to the
> RFC-Editor
>   - Individual submissions which the individual sent to the
> IESG
>   - Wg submissions to the IESG

That would be a good list.  But the first category has
effectively been eliminated (see other note), so there are only
the last two.

I would suggest a different split would be helpful:

	- WG submissions of documents that are directly related
	to the WG's work, e.g., elaborations on standards-track
	materials, "requirements" statements, explanations of
	rejected alternatives, dissenting views.  I would hope
	that WGs would not be permitted to submit anything else.
	
	- With the exception of dissenting views, individual
	submissions equivalent to the above, whether a WG is
	active or not.
	
	- Documents submitted by, or through, the IAB.  That
	category keeps disappearing when lists are generated by
	the IESG.
	
	- Individual documents that are not similar to WG ones,
	but are still relevant to IETF work, including those
	that propose alternate architectural views and document
	background and alternate perceptions.  When such
	documents conflict with, or represent dissenting views
	of, WG efforts, it should be up to the author(s) to
	identify that fact.

At the risk of moving past "problem statement" and toward "fix",
I would also suggest that...

(i) The IESG blocks on RFC Editor processing of individual
submissions that make submission to the RFC Editor de facto
impossible should be removed.

(ii) The first and second categories of documents are the _only_
ones that should go to the IESG.  If anything else does, the
IESG should send it to the RFC Editor without any possibility of
expedited processing because some AD likes the document.

(iii) If the RFC Editor detects that it has received a document
directly from the author that falls into the second category, or
that represents a dissenting view but does not make that context
clear, they should immediately bounce the draft to the author
with instructions to fix those efforts.  The RFC Editor should
be able to do this on an extremely preliminary reading; it does
not require putting a document through the editing process.
Similarly, the RFC Editor should bounce any individual
submission that they conclude, after the same extremely
preliminary reading, is not in good enough shape from an
editorial standpoint that they could process it with a
reasonable level of effort.

(iv) The RFC Editor should then process remaining individual
submissions as it supposedly does now, passing them by the IESG
(with a strict timeout) for coordination as suggested in RFC
2026.

      john