Re: Last Call: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis (IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions) to BCP

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, June 01, 2009 21:47 +0300 Jari Arkko
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> As written, this violates provisions of RFC 4846 as well as
>> some of the language in the current RFC Editor Model draft.
>> The IESG may _request_ that notes or other language be added.
> 
> Indeed -- thanks for catching this. It should say "may choose
> to request" or some words to that effect.

Either that, or Russ's wording, would be fine with me.

I believe that the bottom-line principles here are:

	(1) As above, the IESG requests that the ISE do things;
	it does not insert text or require that text be inserted.
	
	(2) Regardless of whether words like "exceptional"
	appear, the expectation should be that the typical
	independent submission document (or other
	non-IETF-stream document) will contain only the stream
	identification and whatever statements about review and
	consensus go with it, per headers and boilerplates.
	Requests for Additional statements should be unusual and
	very specific to the circumstances of a given document.
	
	(3) There are no statements to the effect that something
	is not an IETF-stream documents or, for that matter, not
	the Constitution of Lower Slobbovia.  I don't think
	those need to be formally prohibited (partially because
	I have no idea how such a rule would be written) but I
	would hope that the ISE and RSE would ignore any such
	request.

My impression has been that all three of those principles had
already achieved consensus, either on the RFC-Internet list or
in the process of reviewing and approving other documents.  Of
course, that impression could be wrong or the broader community
could have something else to say.

best,
   john