On 10-Jun-26 10:09, Paul Hoffman wrote:
I don't think draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics is ready for RSWG adoption
yet, but for a reason different than what Rich gave (and I agree with some of
his points!).
Some parts of draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics give policy about RFC
publication, which makes sense for this WG. Other parts are about what should
not happen in Internet Drafts, which is very much out of scope for this WG.
I tried untangling some of those specifications for drafts, and was not able to
do easily. Maybe others can suggest text that does so, but until the draft is
clearly only about RFC policy, it should not be adopted in the WG.
Paul,
It is impossible to write about RFC authoring while pretending that there is no
draft that at a certain point is handed over to the RPC, so that is not
something I will attempt to do.
It is true that the existence of I-Ds as a concept derives from RFC 1310, which
was an IAB document, and is currently based on RFC 2026, which is an IETF
document. But it's also true that 100% of RFCs for all streams are drafted
using the I-D format. If there is a draft of an RFC, it's an I-D.
So it seems to me that:
a) It is absolutely within the scope of the Editorial stream to discuss what
guidelines apply to a draft at the instant it is handed over to the RPC as a
stream-approved draft.
b) It would be ludicrous to avoid referring to the known fact that every such
draft is an I-D.
Neither of those realities encroaches on the independence of the IETF stream,
the IRTF stream, the IAB stream, the Independent Submission stream, or even
that of the Editorial stream.
For clarity, I can add a sentence in the Introduction along the lines of:
These guidelines apply to the final draft of an RFC as it is handed over to the
RPC, with each stream having its own procedures prior to that handover.
There are a couple of other places in the draft where things could be a bit
more explicit:
OLD:
In case of doubt, the person submitting the draft should check with
each listed author in advance to avoid any misunderstandings.
NEW:
In case of doubt, the person handing a draft over to the RPC should check with
each listed author in advance to avoid any misunderstandings.
OLD:
However, there are no guarantees that the prior authors will want to
be listed as authors of the new draft and take on whatever
responsibilities that implies.
NEW:
However, there are no guarantees that the prior authors will want to
be listed as authors of the new RFC and take on whatever
responsibilities that implies.
Do you see other places where there can be any doubt that the target is a draft
at the instant it is sent to the RPC?
Rgds
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
