Thanks Harald, and also to the others who responded. It appears I
was mistaken in saying that I had never seen the statement beginning:
This document and the information contained herein...,
since the same text appears in some of my own documents. However,
I don't recall ever seeing it prefaced
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 21. mai 2004 11:30 -0700 Fred Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm still a bit puzzled by what Disclaimer of Validity could mean,
.e.g., could it mean that everything that appears in the document
before it is invalid? Would appreciate clarification on this.
I
Hello Harald,
I had a question on this that may be somewhat related to Pekka's.
On the final page of the document, we find:
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
AS IS basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS
Hi -
From: Fred Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'The IESG and RFC Editor documents: Procedures'
thanks for your comments, Pekka!
wrt review subjects - we went a few rounds on this, and the current list is
probably a reasonable compromise between no list and exhaustive list -
it's short enough to make people notice that such as probably covers a
lot of stuff not mentioned. Good that you
--On Tuesday, May 11, 2004 12:39 PM -0400 Scott Bradner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in general that seems OK though I'd like to see including the
possibility of the author pursuing the work within the IETF
added
Clearly I intended that option to be included. I didn't state
it for two reasons.
I get really
worried about text -- especially new text-- in these procedural
documents that enables or encourages potential protocol
lawyers... whether they are inside the IESG or outside the core
IETF community.
a reasonable worry (sorry to say) - note though that the text I'm
--On 10. mai 2004 09:33 -0400 Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this misses one of the outcomes listed in RFC 2026 - specifically (quoting
from 2026):
the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the
IETF and progressed within the IETF context
this path has been
Pete,
I thought I was describing the status quo and what is currently
happening. Unless the IAB has handed off that responsibility
to the IESG in the last two years (in which case the community
wasn't told), the IESG's having any discussion at all with the
RFC Editor about an IAB document
--On 10. mai 2004 09:33 -0400 Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this misses one of the outcomes listed in RFC 2026 - specifically (quoting
from 2026):
the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the
IETF and progressed within the IETF context
this path has
--On 11. mai 2004 08:46 -0400 Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- The work can be done in the IETF, and the author agrees. The author
should (IMHO) be the one to inform the RFC Editor that he/she is
dropping the request to publish outside IETF review.
but that seems to drop a ball - the
Anything else should (IMHO) be advice to the RFC Editor and the author, and
not be part of the formal position-taking the IESG makes.
we may be debating termonology
your ID says The IESG may return five different responses
that seems to eliminate the possibility of communicating any
such
Scott, Harald,
It seems to me that this problem/ disagreement could be easily
solved while preserving the (IMO, valid) points both of you are
making, by including a sentence somewhere to the effect of...
Of course, the IESG or individual ADs may have
discussions with the author
in general that seems OK though I'd like to see including the possibility
of the author pursuing the work within the IETF added
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue May 11 12:18:30 2004
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:18:20 -0400
From: John
looks good to me - one suggestion of clearer language and a potential
addition
o Documents for which special rules exist, including IAB documents
and April 1st RFCs, and republication of documents from other SDOs
- the IESG and the RFC Editor keep a running dialogue on which
--On Monday, May 10, 2004 9:33 AM -0400 Scott Bradner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
looks good to me - one suggestion of clearer language and a
potential addition
o Documents for which special rules exist, including IAB
documents and April 1st RFCs, and republication of
documents from other
--On Monday, May 10, 2004 10:57 AM -0400 Scott Bradner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
note that I just used the words that were there - do you
suggest leaving teh words as they are? if not, maybe you can
suggest something better
I guess that, before, the text was sufficiently muddy that I
didn't
fwiw - this works for me
---
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'The IESG and RFC Editor documents:
Procedures' to BCP
--On Monday, May 10, 2004 10:57 AM -0400 Scott Bradner
[EMAIL
On 5/10/04 at 10:54 AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, May 10, 2004 9:33 AM -0400 Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
looks good to me - one suggestion of clearer language and a
potential addition
o Documents for which special rules exist, including IAB
documents and April 1st
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering Group
WG to consider the following document:
- 'The IESG and RFC Editor documents: Procedures '
draft-iesg-rfced-documents-01.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
20 matches
Mail list logo
