Subject: The RFC Editor and the Internet Standards Process

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:56:26 -0700

Hello,

A proposal was posted at 
http://www.iab.org/documents/resources/RFC-Editor-Model.html about a 
new structure for the RFC Editor.  I read about the Internet 
Standards Process and couldn't find the answer to a question.

Quoting Section 4.2.3 of RFC 2606:

   "The RFC Editor is expected to exercise his or her judgment 
concerning the editorial
    suitability of a document for publication with Experimental or
    Informational status, and may refuse to publish a document which, in
    the expert opinion of the RFC Editor, is unrelated to Internet
    activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for
    RFCs."

Furthermore,

    ".. the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor
    will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or
    Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor,
    may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the
    IETF community."

Given that the RFC Editor is explicitly mentioned in RFC 2026, does 
RFC 2606 have to be revised to bring it in line with the proposed structure?

Regards,
-sm

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:21:10 +0200

> RFC 2606 have to be revised to bring it in line with the proposed  

I would argue that 2026 does not need to be revised.

The model discribes the collective of functions that taken together we  
call "The RFC Editor". Various people have already commented that  
using the same words for one of the functions is confusing.

More to the point 4.2.3 is about what we have started to call the  
independent submissions and it is the Independent Submission Editor  
function in the model that takes the responsibilities that are  
described in the paragraph above.

Also see RFC4844 and RFC4846.

--Olaf

---

From: "Bivudendu Rout" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:05:11 +0530

Hi All,

Can any one tell me whether the extention marker will be encoded for the
below structure or not.

SAEBearerToBeSetupItemCtxtSUReqIEs 	S1AP-PROTOCOL-IES ::= {
	{ ID id-SAEBearerToBeSetupItemCtxtSUReq	 CRITICALITY reject 	TYPE
SAEBearerToBeSetupItemCtxtSUReq 	PRESENCE mandatory },
	...
}

Regards
Bivu

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:20:35 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "SM" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:56 PM
Subject: The RFC Editor and the Internet Standards Process

>    activity or falls below the technical and/or editorial standard for

This creates a liabilty for the Editor that may not be reasonable.

> RFC 2606 have to be revised to bring it in line with the proposed 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.19/1662 - Release Date: 9/9/2008 
10:47 AM