Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:38 PM
To: Spencer Dawkins; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Techspec] IAB path [Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-mankin-pub-req-04.txt]
--On onsdag, februar 15, 2006 16:26:48 -0600 Spencer Dawkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'd state flatly that the techspec requirements apply to
documents from
the IETF that are published with IETF approval, as decided
by the IESG.
If, as I think, we want the publication mechanism to be
applicable to
other documents (which includes independent submissions,
IAB documents,
IRTF documents and IAOC documents, if any), I think the
requirements for
those classes of documents need to be separate.
Trying to merge them makes the process of writing them down FAR too
convoluted.
Harald
Hi, Harald,
On this same topic - aren't direct submissions, IETF documents, IAB
documents, IRTF documents, and IAOC documents are all submitted and
approved for publication in different ways?
If so, it seems unhelpful to put procedures for all of
these documents
into a single draft - wouldn't that mean that the draft
would be approved
by all the different approving bodies before it could be published?
I think I'm agreeing and just trying to make sure I
understand all the
reasons why you're right :-)
that makes eminent sense to me, so I guess we understand each
other :-)
otoh, in the end the continuation (or not) of the RFC series
has to be
reduced in the end to a single statement of work under a
single contract -
but I think the IETF standard process should make *its* input
into that
process now, and let the other pieces come along later.
Harald
I also think it makes sense to narrow the scope to only IETF documents, as
decided by the IESG. This does not prevent many of these requirements from
being adopted for documents arriving via other channels.
This document so far mainly addresses the technical publisher part of the
publication process. As indicated in section 5 there are complementary
processes that need to be developed on the IETF side. These processes will
probably be unique to documents going through the IESG.
However (in answer to Harald), the other pieces have to be available,
together with the techspec piece, in time for the IAOC to write an RFP, so
they actually do have to be worked on in parallel - but not here.
I'm not sure that the IAOC will be generating enough RFCs to justify
a special process, BTW. The only one we generated so far needed to be
a BCP anyway, so it went to the IESG in the normal way.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
