On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 1:16 PM Jay Daley <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Thank you Jay. I hadn't actually realized this. So hypothetically, if the IESG wanted to require all I-Ds to be in Word format, we think they could do so? -Ekr > > 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]
