Re: Status of <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-16.txt> in AUTH48

[[e-mail]]

Brian,

>>> I don't think this is a WG matter and I don't think it's the IETF's business
>>> either. It seems to me that this matter is in the scope of the RFC Editor to
>>> decide, if the authors can't, since it's about the style and contents of an RFC.
>>> IMHO, it has nothing to do with its technical content or with the fact that
>>> it's an IETF stream document.
>> 
>> What makes you think that?
>> Is that described in RFC process somewhere?
> 
> As I read RFC4844 section 4.4, this sort of general content issue would
> clearly be the responsibility of the RFC Editor. As far as I can see,
> the RFC Editor's style guide doesn't cover it specifically.
> 
>> From RFC7221:
> 
> That's about the IETF RFC stream, and making sure that the technical content
> has WG and IETF consensus. So IMHO this issue lies entirely outside the question
> of WG consensus. The RFC series is not just for the IETF.

This document is on the IETF RFC stream. I am not familiar with this separation between "technical" content and other content.
Where do you have that from?
This doesn't seem to fall within: "...uniform style and content for RFCs across all streams.  This includes, but is not limited to, acceptable
   language, use of references, and copyright rules."

The main concern here is the change during AUTH48, more than the exact change. Why the author chose to add this and has done with many documents at this point in the process is unknown to me. This seems to me to be in conflict with the working group's document ownership and change control. (Of course you can argue that's also problematic when the IESG edits documents without the working group's involvement as well.)

Cheers,
Ole
Ole