Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> "send publication request to secretariat" is more attractive >> than spamming ADs. > You probably need to understand what happens when someone > does that. Yes, I haven't tested it yet. > The Secretariat simply forwards the note to the IESG. Don't they also set the "pubreq" bit in the I-D tracker ? > After a while, the IESG Chair will (with luck) have handled > everything that looks urgent, and will take a glance at > draft-smith-my-new-idea and make an uninformed guess that it > fits the smurf Area. Doesn't sound good, I thought it would hit a "tracker exception" or something after a while (if nobody feels like looking at it). > The IESG Chair will send a note to one or both smurf ADs > saying "Can you have a look at this?". The Chair could appoint... http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IesgWhips ...for stuff stuck in procedural corners. Getting the "pubreq" flag is important, it won't go away unless the author gives up, or it's transformed to "do not publish" / "RFC published". > then the process proposed by draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines > actually starts - probably with another wait until one of > those ADs has handled everything that looks urgent. But without the "AD shopping" mentioned in the draft, what I called "AD spamming": One of the two ADs has to do something visible in the I-D tracker, like enter "revised ID needed" or start a last call. Or note it as "dead", or if that's allowed maybe "demote" it to "AD is watching" - when the authors agree. So far I thought that authors create this "pubreq" flag, for individual I-Ds, or otherwise the WG Chairs representing some consensus of their WG. With the proposed procedure it's apparently the IESG creating any "pubreq" flag, and you can block this important step in a rather obscure (= invisible in the tracker) procedure, roughly reflecting "nobody feels like caring about the I-D". Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf