>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
John> Harald,
John> Sorry, but I've got a procedural problem with this. I-Ds
John> can't obsolete anything, even I-Ds approved by the IESG.
John> While "fiddle with the RFC Editor note in the
John> announcement..." may be the usual reason for delay, we all
John> know that documents sometimes change significantly between
John> the last-published I-D and actual RFC publication. In
John> theory, the announcement could be posted, the IDR WG
John> membership could take a look at it and conclude the AD's RFC
John> Editor note does not reflect WG consensus, and an appeal of
John> the announcement could be filed. As far as I know, that has
John> never happened, but the procedures clearly permit it and I
John> can think of a case or two when maybe it should have. While
John> we have safeguards to prevent it, it is even possible that a
John> document inadvertently would change enough during the RFC
John> editing process that the WG would no longer believe it was
John> an appropriate replacement for the earlier document.
I don't think everyone believes the procedures work this way. A while
back, there was a discussion on wgchairs about when the timer started
for a standard moving to draft standard.
My interpretation of that discussion was that it was the protocol
action message that established a new standard, not the publication of
the RFC.
Personally I don't care how it works. I see both the points you raise
and the arguments in favor of the wgchairs discussion. To me, either
way of doing things would be valid.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf