Re: Last Call: 'The IESG and RFC Editor documents: Procedures' to BCP

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Scott, Harald,

It seems to me that this problem/ disagreement could be easily solved while preserving the (IMO, valid) points both of you are making, by including a sentence somewhere to the effect of...

	Of course, the IESG or individual ADs may have
	discussions with the author during this period about
	other possible ways to handle the document.  Should that
	discussion result in a voluntary action by the author to
	drop the request to the RFC Editor to publist, the
	document moves immediately outside the scope of this
	specification.

Now, that may not be the right phrasing in context, and can certainly be improved. But I think it covers the full range of from "we really think this should be standardized, why not let us process it that way" to "if you insist on publishing that thing, I'm going to break both of your legs". The question of whether those actions are appropriate is a separate issue, but the IESG has never been able to insist on either standardization or withdrawal. And, as far as I know, both actions are identical as far as the RFC Editor is concerned: the document is spontaneously withdrawn as an individual submission.

john


--On Tuesday, May 11, 2004 9:57 AM -0400 Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Anything else should (IMHO) be advice to the RFC Editor and
the author, and  not be part of the formal position-taking
the IESG makes.

we may be debating termonology


your ID says "The IESG may return five different responses"

that seems to eliminate the possibility of communicating any
such advice

Because in the past, we've seriously bogged down independent
publications  because we were debating (with or without the
author) whether or not they  should be IETF work.
And we need to stop doing that.

beware of tossing too much away just to "stop doing that"


I still fail to see why this document cannot say that one of
the outcomes could be that the author could agree with the
IESG to bring the work into the IETF -  it seems a bit
dogmatic to refuse to say that (and counter to the intent of
2026)

Scott

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf





_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]