On 26-Jun-26 00:55, Roman Danyliw wrote:
Hi!
(as an individual)
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hoffman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 6:59 PM
To: RSWG <[email protected]>
Subject: [Rswg] Re: [Ext] Re: I-D Action:
draft-carpenter-rswg-authoring-ethics-05.txt
Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
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.
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.
[Roman] To add a few other document references the above conclusion:
* RFC3710 (Feb-2004) says "It [The IESG] also administers IETF logistics, including
operation of the Internet-Draft document series and the IETF meeting event."
* Both RFC2026 and RFC3710 pre-date the definition of streams which we didn't
get until RFC4844 in 2007.
FWIW, RFC3710, although Informational, did go through IETF Last Call, so it is
an IETF consensus document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iesg-charter/history/
Brian
Roman
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
