Re: [Techspec] Additional comment on draft-mankin-pub-req-08

I think this is a positioning matter.

This draft is indeed an IETF work product and talks about
IETF requirements. Whether the other publication streams
identified in draft-iab-rfc-editor choose to adopt these
requirements is their business. As Elwyn said (just before
leaving on vacation, btw) the document *could* be reorganised
to suggest which are generic and which are IETF-specific.
But as long as it's an IETF document, that could only be
a suggestion. Given the timeline we're working to, I
personally wouldn't recommend major surgery on the document
for that purpose.

    Brian

John C Klensin wrote:
> (resending a slightly modified version from the correct address
> -- sorry)
> 
> --On Monday, 12 June, 2006 18:19 +0100 Elwyn Davies
> <elwynd@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I appreciate that the last call is strictly over, but one
>>extra point came to mind when considering
>>draft-iab-rfc-editor-00.
>>
>>The requirements in draft-mankin split into two parts:
>>- Those that are specific to the IETF document 'stream' -
>>most;y the 'front end' of the process
>>- Those that apply mainly to the back end of the process and
>>are relevant to any documents that are published by the RFC
>>Editor
>>
>>For convenience when specifying requirements for IAB and IRTF
>>documents etc it would be helpful if the two types of
>>requirements were split into separate sections for easier
>>cross referencing.
> 
> 
> Elwyn,
> 
> This is, of course, one of the meta-problems with the document
> that several of us have tried to point out in different ways.
> The community has been repeatedly assured that it applies _only_
> to the IETF document stream.  If that is true, then the material
> you describe as "generic" is advisory at best.  At worst, it
> needs separate evaluation via other processes.
> 
> If it is not true, then the document needs an entirely different
> type of review and the IESG may not be an appropriate body to
> manage that review.
> 
> Of course, those comments don't make your suggestion about
> reorganizing the document and clearly identifying applicability
> any less useful.
> 
>        john
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Techspec mailing list
> Techspec@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
Techspec@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec