draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04 status

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

Hello,
I have reviewed the Last Call comments on the Last Call for BCP status on 
this document.

There seems to be a number of different concerns at various levels:

1 - The document seems to specify the rules for RFC publication in some 
detail, without being clear about whether it is claiming authority or it is 
reproducing other documents' rules. In some cases, it seems in conflict 
with other documents. This needs to be clear and consistent; RFC 2223 is 
claimed to not have described the publication process.
The suggestion has been made that the policy issues need to be separated 
out in its own document - perhaps an "RFC Editor charter"? (IAB, Atkinson, 
others)

2 - The document is somewhat over-specific at some points, such as 
specifying which utility the RFC Editor uses to produce PDF from text. This 
is probably inappropriate. (Huston, Moore)

3 - There are references to other specs, such as the IESG "ID-nits", whose 
stability is less than that of a BCP RFC. The form of these references 
needs to be carefully considered. (Klensin)

4 - Some considerations (security considerations, IANA considerations) 
already have, or will have, specific RFCs talking about them. Referencing 
these is preferable to reproducing a revised version of their content. 
(Huston, others; IANA had specific text suggestions)

5 - The style of references preferred by the RFC Editor needs to be clear; 
either the author always gets to choose, or there is one documented style, 
with justification. (Hoffman, others)

I believe that point 1, 3 and 4 HAVE to be addressed before publication - 
and that the implications of doing so may be wide enough that I'm holding 
back on spending significant time on finding smaller nits at this time.

However, this AD thinks that the difference between an acronym and an 
abbreviation is irrelevant to the content of the document :-)

These comments have been entered into the ID-tracker, and the state changed 
to "new ID needed". If appropriate, I and several others are available at 
the IESG retreat for more discussion of the document.

Thank you!

            Harald Alvestrand, responsible AD for this document