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RFCs are "withdrawn" for a variety of reasons, already.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