John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, August 01, 2005 09:24 +0300 Pekka Savola
<pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
I think this looks, at the high level, a potentially workable
method in that
it reduces the AD load and creates a separation of management
and review.
thanks
I note that the document does not discuss at all (except that
the panel doesn't deal with them) the AD-sponsored
Info/Experimental documents which are NOT submitted in
conjunction with a standards track documents. What would the
path for these?
Obviously, if the community had an opinion on them, the draft could (and
would) be changed. But my reasoning and assumption was that, today, we
have...
standards track doc ---> IESG
info/experimental --> IESG
|---> RFC Editor
This draft changes _only_ that first line. The IESG can still authorize
publication of WG-produced, or other IETF-relevant, docs as
informational or experimental, or authors can take such documents to the
RFC editor (subject to IESG review as specified in RFC 3932).
Factoid: about 65% of documents considered recently by the IESG are
standards/BCP track. It's very hard to determine what fraction of
the IESG's time goes on these documents, but there are some indications
that the remaining 35% take a disproportionate amount of time.
Documents sometimes move between standards and info/exptl during
IESG review, so if we want to keep that flexibility, this has to
be covered by the process.
In general, I would like to see an updated version of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/state_diagram.gif
with annotations showing where the IESG would induce a transition
and where the review panel would do so.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
