Re: Uneccesary slowness.

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

 



John C Klensin wrote:

...
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.

Well, there are always going to be judgement calls about whether something is or isn't an end-run, which is where I would expect "discuss" positions to come from on such documents. It's also a fact that with o(15) drafts on the IESG agenda every two weeks, respecting the four week cycle can be tough if the draft in question is of any length and complexity. All I can say is the IESG is supposed to follow 3932 and is very much aware of that.

   Brian


_______________________________________________ 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]