Subject: Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF

From: Sally Floyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 11:47:42 -0800

>> IRTF drafts are treated like independent submissions - there are no special
>> processing rules for them. Do we need any?
>
>Just that they're called draft-irtf-group-whatever so people who are
>looking for them can find them.

That already happens with internet drafts: internet-drafts
listed under individual submissions include:
 draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-01.txt,
 draft-irtf-routing-history-01.txt,
 draft-irtf-routing-reqs-03.txt
 draft-irtf-aaaarch-generic-policy-06.txt,
 draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-spec-02.txt,
and more.  

It sounds like we would prefer them to be listed on the web page
at "http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/1id-abstracts.html" separately
under irtf, or under the RG, even though they are treated as
individual submissions.

- Sally

_______________________________________________
Rgchairs mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:32:41 -0800 (PST)

*> The point that I see in some need of clarification still is the approval 
  *> process for RG draft publication - should there be some explicit IRTF 
  *> signoff (IRTF chair, IRSG or RG chair seem some possible candidates to give 
  *> it) and have the drafts enter the RFC Editor's queue at the same point as 
  *> IETF drafts, or should they come straight from the RG and enter (as today) 
  *> as individual submissions?
  *> 

The RFC Editor would certainly like some additional oversight of IRTF
document quality before they reach us, no matter what the process is.
Frankly, the quality of some IRTF-originated documents in the past several
years has been disappointing and required a lot of editing to reach
an acceptable level.  Since the authors are researchers, you would expect
publication-quality documentation to emerge, but some of the submissions
would not pass muster for any academic publication I know of.

Bob Braden for the RFC Editor

  *> When we reach this stage in other process discussions, I tend to say "do we 
  *> have a volunteer to document this approach as an I-D?" - is that an 
  *> appropriate thing to call for here, Vern?
  *> 
  *> (see <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/rfc-editor-process.gif> 
  *> for the flowchart I'm thinking about)
  *> 
  *>                    Harald
  *> 
  *> _______________________________________________
  *> Rgchairs mailing list
  *> [email-masked]
  *> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs
  *>