Marshall Eubanks | 9 Apr 20:12 2010
Picon

Note Well

The Note Well says in part

>
>
> ...which are addressed to:
>
>    • The IETF plenary session
>    • The IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG
>    • Any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any  
> working
> group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF
> auspices
>    • Any IETF working group or portion thereof
>    • The IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB
>    • The RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function
>
>
>

Does this need to be expanded to include the other stream editors ? Or  
do the other streams need their own Note Well ?

Regards
Marshall
Brian E Carpenter | 9 Apr 22:31 2010
Picon

Re: Note Well

On 2010-04-10 06:12, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> The Note Well says in part
> 
>>
>>
>> ...which are addressed to:
>>
>>    • The IETF plenary session
>>    • The IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG
>>    • Any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working
>> group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF
>> auspices
>>    • Any IETF working group or portion thereof
>>    • The IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB
>>    • The RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Does this need to be expanded to include the other stream editors ? Or
> do the other streams need their own Note Well ?

I'd say NO and no.

NO to the first because the Note Well is highly specific to IETF
contributors, which is a precisely defined category, and we should
not confuse this with the other streams.

No to the second because the Note Well is, strictly speaking, legally
redundant. The BCPs themselves are a necessary and sufficient
(Continue reading)

Harald Alvestrand | 10 Apr 08:48 2010
Picon

Re: Note Well

Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> The Note Well says in part
>
>>
>>
>> ...which are addressed to:
>>
>>    • The IETF plenary session
>>    • The IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG
>>    • Any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working
>> group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF
>> auspices
>>    • Any IETF working group or portion thereof
>>    • The IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB
>>    • The RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function
>>
>>
>>
>
> Does this need to be expanded to include the other stream editors ? Or 
> do the other streams need their own Note Well ? 
> https://hembanken.danskebank.se/html/index.html?site=OENB&secsystem=KO
Aren't the other stream editors covered by the "RFC Editor" concept?
They all result in RFCs.

Note - I don't think "the RFC Editor" in the Note Well was ever intended 
to refer to a single person; it was always the function.
>
> Regards
> Marshall
(Continue reading)

todd glassey | 11 Apr 02:56 2010
Picon
Picon

Re: Note Well

On 4/9/2010 11:48 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> The Note Well says in part
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ...which are addressed to:
>>>
>>>    • The IETF plenary session
>>>    • The IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG
>>>    • Any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working
>>> group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF
>>> auspices
>>>    • Any IETF working group or portion thereof
>>>    • The IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB
>>>    • The RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Does this need to be expanded to include the other stream editors ? Or
>> do the other streams need their own Note Well ?
>> https://hembanken.danskebank.se/html/index.html?site=OENB&secsystem=KO
> Aren't the other stream editors covered by the "RFC Editor" concept?
> They all result in RFCs.
> 
> Note - I don't think "the RFC Editor" in the Note Well was ever intended
> to refer to a single person; it was always the function.

The question then becomes one of whether that was for approval purposes,
(Continue reading)


Gmane