Your comments on RFC 2223bis-04.

[Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>]

  *> 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).
  *> 

Ran,

In general, the RFC Editor respectfully disagrees with this point.
We believe that the content of this document is about right (though
we have accepted a number of detailed criticisms of it.)

  *> 	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.

It is true that publication of IAB documents is not defined here,
and perhaps it should be (or perhaps not; this document is aimed
at the "great unwashed masses"; the IAB presumably KNOWS all this
anyway).

  *> 
  *> 	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.

IRTF publication is treated as individual submission, as we have seen
no case where different rules seemed appropriate (we will be glad to
hear examples.) You might suspect that IRTF submissions will be of
uniformly high quality, removing the need for the care that goes into
other individual submissions.  Unfortunately, you would be wrong.

RFC Editor/bb


  *> 
  *> Regards,
  *> 
  *> Ran
  *> rja@extremenetworks.com
  *> 


----- End Included Message -----