Eric > On 25 Jun 2026, at 01:00, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > The RSWG has no mandate to modify Internet-Drafts, though maybe they should. > I agree that they don't, and as indicated in my previous message, this > limitation > just seems to be directed towards keeping this document within the scope > of RSWG. However, the better approach would be to bring this to a venue > with the right scope,
This bit I agree with and I think it’s quite clear from RFC 9920. > which is to say to the streams. This bit I do not agree with. My understanding, and I’m happy to be corrected on this, is that Internet-Drafts are solely controlled by the IESG under the standards process as they are defined in RFC 2026. The only body the LLC takes instructions from regarding I-Ds is the IESG and the IESG itself implicitly recognises its own authority when it issues statements that apply to all I-Ds [1] [2], with the latter specifically relating to I-D authorship. So one way forward, though I am not advocating for this, is for the RSWG to produce something solely related to RFCs and the IESG to follow whatever process it thinks appropriate to adopt that for I-Ds. Jay [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-statement-on-removal-of-an-internet-draft-from-the-ietf-web-site-20121025/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-statement-on-internet-draft-authorship-20210510/ -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director [email protected] -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
