Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 24, 2026, at 13:16, Jay Daley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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.
> I find this surprising and disturbing, but I have no evidence that this
> is incorrect, even after a bunch of searching on my own. It makes sense
> historically, but even in 1996 there were IAB and IRTF documents (and
> maybe ISE-like ones?). Still, someone had to be the owner of the rules,
> and RFC 2026 sure looks like that.
Given that power, IAB/IESG *could* simply state publically that the I-D
format and authorship guidelines are the same as the RFC format, with caveats
X,Y,Z.
> And, assuming that this is all true, it doubles down on the idea that
> this discussion does not belong in the RSWG. If the IESG wants to host
> the discussion (and maybe Brian's draft), that's great.
The IAB/IESG could also delegate this to the RWSG.
Or not.
I don't see any practical or pragmatic reason for any divergence.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
** My working hours and your working hours may be different. **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
