70 likes | 130 Views
RFC Primary Marking. Allison Mankin newtrk IETF-59. Issue. Informational and Experimental RFCs of non-IETF or non-WG origin are sources of confusion. Documents very similar to IETF products are the most obvious case http: //ww w.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.dnpn. RFC Editor Doc Review.
E N D
RFC Primary Marking Allison Mankin newtrk IETF-59
Issue • Informational and Experimental RFCs of non-IETF or non-WG origin are sources of confusion. • Documents very similar to IETF products are the most obvious case • http: //ww w.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.dnpn
RFC Editor Doc Review • RFC 2026 states that the IESG reviews only ensure they are not overlapping or “inimical” to IETF efforts. • Currently IESG does full technical review for this purpose.
IESG Review – New Look • IESG has just re-visited RFC 2026 words. • Only light review. • Internal label (secondary marker) planned. • Dialogue with RFC Editor just started. • Harald will speak to this at plenary.
IESG Marker • Secondary marker – a text added by the IESG (not these words, but will be like): • Document not IETF document, and was not reviewed for IETF publication…etc. • Document not an IETF document, though it was considered once by an IETF WG. It was not reviewed for IETF publication… etc.
Primary Marker • Suggested language for charter – Development of a primary marker, such as a series label or sub-label, such that documents not originating from the IETF are clearly distinguished from those that do.
Primary Marker (proposal to be) • Secondary markers limited. Example complications: • Implementers love headers, state diagrams…who reads the front matter? • RFI’s go by RFC number. • A primary marker is an RFC label. • A new series structure will be proposed. • Something like: • Non-IETF series – Independent.