Harald> It might have something to do with the fact that the WG has not Harald> requested that the IESG process these drafts.... if the WG has not Harald> come to consensus on asking for the drafts to be published, I'm Harald> afraid the IESG cannot do anything. I consider this answer to be rather disingenuous. The WG has not requested that the IESG process these drafts because the WG chairs have told the WG that the ADs have told them that the drafts in question cannot be submitted to the IESG until numerous other drafts that no one will ever read (requirements, framework, architecture) have been approved by the IESG. Of course, most of those numerous other drafts were completed about 18 months ago, though a few of them have now come out of the seemingly endless "IESG reviews, WG makes minor change, IESG reviews, WG change" cycle. So you can't honestly answer Yakov by saying "the WG hasn't asked us to process these drafts"; the answer to Yakov's question would be an explanation of (a) why all these prior drafts are really necessary, (b) why it is reasonable for such a long review cycle, and (c) why it is reasonable to delay starting to process the protocol specs until the prior specs are already on the RFC Editor's queue.