Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF

  *> The point that I see in some need of clarification still is the approval 
  *> process for RG draft publication - should there be some explicit IRTF 
  *> signoff (IRTF chair, IRSG or RG chair seem some possible candidates to give 
  *> it) and have the drafts enter the RFC Editor's queue at the same point as 
  *> IETF drafts, or should they come straight from the RG and enter (as today) 
  *> as individual submissions?
  *> 

The RFC Editor would certainly like some additional oversight of IRTF
document quality before they reach us, no matter what the process is.
Frankly, the quality of some IRTF-originated documents in the past several
years has been disappointing and required a lot of editing to reach
an acceptable level.  Since the authors are researchers, you would expect
publication-quality documentation to emerge, but some of the submissions
would not pass muster for any academic publication I know of.

Bob Braden for the RFC Editor

  *> When we reach this stage in other process discussions, I tend to say "do we 
  *> have a volunteer to document this approach as an I-D?" - is that an 
  *> appropriate thing to call for here, Vern?
  *> 
  *> (see <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/rfc-editor-process.gif> 
  *> for the flowchart I'm thinking about)
  *> 
  *>                    Harald
  *> 
  *> _______________________________________________
  *> Rgchairs mailing list
  *> Rgchairs@lists.ietf.org
  *> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs
  *> 

_______________________________________________
Rgchairs mailing list
Rgchairs@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs