--On Monday, May 16, 2005 10:08 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bill, the thing that can create unbounded delay on RFC publication is a normative reference to work in progress. But apart from that, it's dangerous to generalize. For many years, the RFC Editor has only had complete discretion for non-IETF documents (for which there is now a 4 week timeout on the IESG review, see RFC 3932).
Brian,
Part of what I find troubling about these discussions is the disconnect between theory --or maybe "aspirations" would be a better term-- and practice. Let's look at "complete discretion for non-IETF documents" as an example. In the years between the publication of 2026 (or earlier) and that of 3932, the rules were that the IESG's review applied only to conflicts with IETF work, serious risks to the Internet, etc. By agreement between the IESG and RFC Editor, that review was conducted against a two week timeout. That timeout was extended to four weeks when it became clear that the IESG was _never_ meeting the schedule and kept needing to ask for extensions. For many documents, the main consequence of the shift from a two-week timeout to a four-week timeout is that the IESG simply ignored the deadline rather than bothering to ask for extension. And the RFC Editor, presumably out of professional courtesy and respect for the smooth functioning of the IETF, never (at least as far as I know) turned down an extension request or enforced a timeout (i.e., got tired of waiting for the IESG and just went ahead and published).
In theory, 3932 changed almost nothing. The IESG asserted that it was not going to do what it had been barred from doing all along, which was holding up individual submissions ("non-IETF documents") until they were rewritten to match the tastes and preferences of any AD who cared. The principle that quality control for those documents was an RFC Editor responsibility was clarified. And the four-week timeout was formalized.
In practice, it changed even less. Since 3932 was published, there have been at least severa instances of "discuss" positions in then IESG over substantive (not conflicts with IETF work) objections, and I'm aware of at least one or two over editorial matters. The four-week cutoff is still ignored, apparently routinely, and the RFC Editor apparently does not consider it wise to take a "the IESG has not responded within four weeks, so they don't have an objection" position.
So, much as I remain optimistic that 3932 --which, IMO and given the language in 2026 never should have been necessary-- will eventually be taken seriously by all parties, the evidence is that hasn't happened yet.
john
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf