Re: Updated Internet Draft draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt

[Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>]

Bob:

>   *> I think that section 1.3.1 should address submissions from the IRTF 
> as well
>   *> as submissions from the IETF and individuals.
>
> In the past, at least, the IRTF has considered itself to be a bunch of
> [rugged?] individuals, so documents from research groups have been
> treated as individual submissions (See RFC 2309 as an extreme example
> of this; the individuals listed were actually the members of the
> End-to-End Research Group at the time.)   The IRTF cannot create
> standards-track documents and IRTF document do not originate within the
> IESG, so they fall into individual submissions from the RFC Editor
> viewpoint.
I do not believe that this has been consistent.  Like may things, it has 
probably evolved over the years.  Here are some examples that I know about.

RFC 1113 (and the RFCs that it obsoletes) - This was actually generated 
before the IRTF existed.  The IAB Privacy Task Force became the Privacy and 
Security Research Group when the IRTF was formed.

RFC 1421 - This was a transition point from the IRTF to the IETF,

If the current practice for IRTF research groups to generate standards 
track documents via individual submissions, then that is fine with me.  I 
do think that this practice should be included in this section of the document.

>   *> Section 4 leads me to believe that the IANA Considerations are 
> mandatory,
>   *> but the checklist in Appendix C leads me to believe that the IANA
>   *> Considerations are optional.  Please make this consistent.
>
> Thanks, this is an error in the table.  Clearly, the IANA Considerations
> section must be optional, since some (many) RFCs HAVE NO IANA considerations.
Okay.

Russ