Todd Glassey wrote: > Joe thanks for the plumber and janitor response. My response to the same > statement would be: > > The IETF's Editor's have a responsibility to NOT alter IP that is > submitted to the IETF - that can by the Standards process ONLY happen > through the IETF's Vetting process and is not the perogative of the > Editors.
TThere are changes that do not affect IP - notably most corrections to tense, spelling, punctuation, etc. There are changes that might affect IP - those that involve unclear specification (a field with 8 values, only 5 of which are described), etc. It's useful to catch these - though the author determines how best to handle them. I.e., the Editors don't change things, they raise questions or suggest changes. The author and/or IESG (depending on suggested change) would obviously have last say. And the 'standards process' issue applies only to standards-track; there are other docs (Informational, BCP, Experimental) that are handled as well. Joe > -----Original Message----- >> From: Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Jul 21, 2006 9:03 AM >> To: Marcus Leech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: Todd Glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Resnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, IETF >> Administrative Director <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, IETF Announcement list >> <ietf@ietf.org> >> Subject: Re: RFC Editor Function SOW Review >> >> >> >> Marcus Leech wrote: >>> Todd Glassey wrote: >>> >>>> Hmmmm... The SOW MUST define all the elements of the Editor's >>>> responsibility and all the specific tasks they perform as well as the >>>> SLA's for those Tasks. It also MUST address the SOD (Separation of >>>> Duties) within the Editor's work since they are altering the IP >>>> submitted. >>>> >>>> Without that ther is no comprehensive model for evaluating how well >>>> the IETF met its standards and whether it caused damage to others in >>>> the process. >>>> >>>> Todd Glassey as an Auditor. >>>> >>> Methinks you've drunk too deeply of the SOX Kool-Aid, Todd. Along >>> what lines would you >>> suggest that the RFC Editor "separate its duties"? >>> >>> Perhaps you would also reccommend that the guy who replaces the air >>> freshener blocks >>> in the mens bathroom not also be the same guy who fixes the plumbing? >> It isn't; one is typically a janitor, the other a plumber. >> >>> Or maybe the >>> guy who diagnoses your automotive problems be different from the guy >>> who actually >>> fixes it? Perhaps in the RFC-Editor function, the person who fixes >>> missing commas >>> and semi-colons, should be different from the person who addresses >>> clarity and >>> normative reference issues? >> Clarity and normative reference issues are often content specific. They >> require knowledge of Internet protocols and their interrelationships >> (even if the IESG approves the doc doesn't mean the doc is written >> clearly in that regard). >> >> General text editing is not content specific. >> >> If you think you can find someone knowledgable enough in the Internet >> who wants to burn their time fixing typos, please do. I suspect a >> separation of duties will be necessary otherwise. >> >> Joe >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
