Joe Touch wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Narten wrote:
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.
Process-wise, this isn't right, IMO (which is where I suspect John is
coming from). Process-wise, the thing to do is respond to the RFC
editor with one of response 4 or 5 in Section 3 of RFC 3932 (e.g.,
potential end run, this needs to be reviewed by the IETF', to make it
clear exactly what state the document is.
You're correct about the process. I was trying to explain what may
happen in reality...
The decision of whether something is an "end run" should be relatively
fast. One can always air on the conservative side if in doubt and say
"looks like end run", while getting more detailed reviews.
If in doubt, it's more productive say "MIGHT be an end run" and ask for
more time. Throwing tar isn't a substitute for hesitating before throwing.
3932 isn't explicit about asking for more time. It says:
The IESG will normally have review done within 4 weeks from the RFC
Editor's notification. In the case of a possible conflict, the IESG
may contact a WG or a WG chair for an outside opinion of whether
publishing the document is harmful to the work of the WG and, in the
case of a possible conflict with an IANA registration procedure, the
IANA expert for that registry.
Would it be better if the process required an explicit request for
more time?
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf