> On 25 Jun 2026, at 08:38, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> 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? RFC 2026 and the name itself, defines Internet-Drafts as "drafts", i.e. draft versions of RFCs. So I doubt any change that prevented a normal format accepted for RFC publication, would be compliant with that policy. Jay -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director [email protected] -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
