I am incline towards looking for ways reduce the workload of the RFC editors and if possible the IESG. The size of the IETF these days does not allows us to function in the "old ways" without substainable support.
As such, I believe a review of RFC 1543 may be useful. I mean, most people only see I-Ds and RFCs and have largely ignore the other STDs and BCPs.
Maybe we just have too many classification under RFC series and perhaps we should consider having something between I-D and RFC for Informational and Experimental doc. Such class may be published with little review from IESG and less work on RFC Editors (so long the std templates and copyrights are in place)
-James Seng
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 28. mars 2004 01:35 +0800 James Seng <jseng@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Few questions:
Thanks, James!
1. Section 4 say that "For documents that are independent of the IETF process: This document is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard."
Does this means that an individual submission can only be Informational only? ie. not even experimental? If so, how does this fit into what happened in IMAA BoF in Seoul?
Experimental documents are not (in themselves) candidates for any level of Internet Standard. Revisions of the ideas therein may be - and the same thing can happen to Informationals. This needs to be clearer.....
(The conclusion is no working group, but wrap up and docs some of the implementations as possibly experimental RFCs via individual submissions)
2. Section 3 talks about the various IESG responses. Most of it makes sense but the last one: "The IESG thinks that this document extends an IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review, and should therefore not be published without IETF review."
It wasn't very clear when will the above apply.
It wasn't very clear to me either when I wrote it.
Beside, wasn't individual submission already (maybe) subjected to 4 weeks last call? Does this qualify as 'IETF review'?
No - the Last Call is only done for standards-track and BCP, not for the Info and Experimental sent in via the RFC Editor. (sometimes we've done it in the past, but it's unlikely to happen under this procedure.)
and yes, a 4-week Last Call + the procedure that led an AD to conclude that it was ready for last call *does* qualify as "IETF review"!