Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

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

 





Tim Polk wrote:
There is no way to ensure that documents aren't published until *all* the
appeals timers expire.  Given that, let's encourage the RFC Editor to
publish when ready, and we can concentrate on establishing a process that
works when the appeal concerns a published document.


+1

RFCs are "withdrawn" for a variety of reasons, already. A successful appeal would be merely one more. While no, "historic" is not metemantically identical to nevering having been published, it is sufficient that it means "not approved by the IETF". Approval-vs-nonApproval seems like the most pragmatic test of "reversal".

The IETF approval process already has significant points of review and control. While this final-stage appeal potential is real, it does not happen with any frequency and the dangerous community impact of publishing an RFC that quickly gets moved to historic are small, possibly nil.

Hence, no new mechanisms are need, although I do think it was useful to raise the question for discussion in this thread.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

_______________________________________________

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]