draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

Hi,

	Two comments about this document are in this note.

1)	There are too many different topics being addressed inside this
single document.  Topics include, for example:
	- History of RFC document series
	- RFC-Editor policy
	- IETF policy for standards-track RFCs
	- Publication process for IETF (e.g. standards-track, or
		Informational/Experimental originating from an IETF WG) RFCs
	- Publication for non-IETF RFCs (e.g. documents originating
		from IAB, or from IRTF, or from individual authors [on
		topics outside IETF activity at time of publication])
	- Formatting rules for RFCs
	- Roles & Responsibilities of the RFC-Editor (which effectively
		amounts to an RFC-Editor Charter).

	It would be preferable for this current I-D to get edited into
at least 2, maybe 3 separate documents.  One document should focus
on the formatting/editorial topics that someone writing an RFC
would need to know.  A second document should focus on the RFC
publication processes.  Potentially a third document would
extract the bits about the RFC-Editor's roles/responsibilities
and be written down as an RFC-Editor Charter.

2) Section 1.3 is incomplete.

	It fails to distinguish the IAB's RFC publication process from that 
used
for a standards-track RFC or from individual-submissions.  There is at 
least
an I-D (from Geoff) documenting the long-standing RFC publication 
process
of the IAB, which is different from either one here.  Yet there is no 
mention
of that distinction here.

	Also, there is no discussion of the IRTF publication process in 1.3.
It is not appropriate for an IRTF document to have to follow IETF's 
rules
for standards-track documents in order to be published as an RFC, yet an
IRTF submission is not identical to an individual submission.  IETF and 
IRTF
are sibling organisations; IRTF is not a subsidiary of the IETF;
IRTF is overseen by IAB not by IESG.  IAB, IETF, IESG, and IRTF have for
many many years shared the RFC document series, though their publication
processes have not been identical heretofore.

Regards,

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com