>>Looking at the current RFC editor queue, I count 25 IETF documents in
>>MISSREF*R state. A good number of been waiting for roughly a year, one
>>document for nearly 3.
>
>Let's be clear that the experiment wouldn't automatically release
>all of those 25 documents. It would only allow ones to be released
>that refer (normatively) to
> "o Internet-Drafts of Standards Track documents for which IESG review
> has been completed and Protocol Action or Document Action notices
> have been issued."
Dear Brian,
I do not want to keep harping on the same topic. However, any
specific reason why "Standar Track" only, and not BCP?. The
ltru-matching example, you created and I quoted as an existing
candidate, belongs to a BCP? I personally see no difference?
Or is it that BCP should be quoted by their own number and not by
their RFC number, the reason why BCP Drafts are enforced as soon as
approved by the IESG? I support that. I must say I start being
confused by all these options to RFC 2026 simplicity.
I would also suggest to clarify the issue in having the text say "for
which IESG review and appeal period have been completed ..." to
coform with RFC 2026 and not to create a conflict with the duties of
the RFC Editor (it is to make sure that texts are not harmful: they
translated this in putting on Hold appealed documents).
Rather than overriding it with exeception, could we not consider this
as an incitement at responding appeals in reasonable delays. This
would avoid the question of and the need for suspensive appeals?
What used to work in the IETF was is not that it was decentralised
and worked on general rought consensus?
jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf