[rfc-i] Problems and requirements for RFC Format
sm at resistor.net
Sun Apr 22 16:59:22 PDT 2012
At 12:53 22-04-2012, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>Whatever the rules may be, the reality is that the IESG sets the
>rules for I-Ds, and the combination of the tools team (for automated
>submission) and the secretariat (for manual submission) enforce the rules.
Yes, well, that's how it has worked.
At 13:11 22-04-2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
>This makes the other streams subservient to the IETF stream, which
>strikes me as inappropriate. That yuor summary does reflect current
>reality does not make it appropriate policy.
>An alternative to consider is to have all of the streams provide a
>collective, single policy for I-Ds, administered, say, by the RFC Editor...
That is covered in RFC 4844.
If the streams would like to forfeit there standing, it is their
decision to make. I assume that they find the repercussions acceptable.
More information about the rfc-interest