Terms used in rules-update-07

--On Monday, 31 July, 2006 12:18 -0700 Ted Hardie
<hardiequalcomm.com> wrote:

> At 2:44 PM -0400 7/31/06, John C Klensin wrote:
>> > And that raises my second issue:  we have lots
of history
>> > that says keeping working groups around
forever creates
>>> problems, so there are topic areas where the
IETF work
>...
>> This is fine.    I would identify most, probably
all, of the
>> thing you list as byproducts of the standards
track. 
> 
> They may be "byproducts" of the standards
track, but neither
> URN NIDs nor media type documents are required to be
> standards track.  They are generally informational.
> How do you tell the ones that are byproducts of
previous IETF
> standards action from others? 

I agree that it is hard or impossible today... and important
only if something makes it important.

> Having a "reviewed by" section in the
document (instead of
> the write-up) might be sufficient--it could indicate
when
> something was reviewed by IETF-types, for example, by
> Last Call, and by the IESG.  Checking that and the
normative
> references would give you a pretty good idea, but I am
not
> all sure it would be definitive.

That would work for me, although I'd share your concern
about
whether it is definitive.  And that answer would depend, in
part, on why someone needed to know.

>> But, if ADs are going to sponsor documents and that
fact makes
>> them "IETF products", and the rules for
IETF products are
>> different than those for other RFCs, it seems to me
that is
>> still on-topic for this WG.
> 
> I thought I understood Jorge to say that any document
submitted
> to the IETF would be treated under the same rules. 
Documents
> submitted to the IESG are (at least according to the
Note Well
> as I understand it) submitted to the IETF.  If the
submission
> triggers that, rather than the acceptance by an AD for
> sponsorship, then I think that we're in a better
position,  as
> we don't have to re-check the rules if it goes to a
WG, a
> review list/directorate, or last call.  To me, the need
to be
> able to request a document be reviewed in a working
group
> argues strongly that the same rules should apply to
> submissions made to the IESG part of the IETF as to
other
> parts of the IETF.

Yes.  I think we agree.

    john


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg