---- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Cc: <iab@xxxxxxxx>; <iesg@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:52 AM Subject: Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months? > IETF Chair skrev: > > Dear IETF Community: > > > > Due to a lot of hard work, the RFC Editor is publishing approved > > Internet-Drafts more quickly. Overall this is just what we want to > > happen. However, I am concerned that the RFC Editor is might be getting > > too quick. Anyone can appeal the approval of a document in the two months > > following the approval. In the past, there was not any danger of the RFC > > Editor publishing a document before this timer expired, and the only > > documents that became RFCs in less than 60 days were the ones where the > > IESG explicitly asked for expedited processing. The recent improvements > > by the RFC Editor make it likely that all documents will be moving through > > the publication process in less than two months. > > > My short reply: Bad idea. > > In my opinion, placing such a hold on documents is a triumph of process > over sanity. > <snip> > Such a hold is a dumb idea, and we shouldn't do it. Just publish, and if > we turn out to have made the wrong decision, make a public statement > saying that; one form of public statement is leaving a hole in the RFC > Index. > I recall a recent occasion when the IESG withdrew its approval, for draft-housley-tls-authz-extns a document that both before and after its approval generated a lot of heat, within and without a WG. Presumably the expedited process would, or at least could, have seen that published as an RFC. With that example in mind, a 60 day hold seems rather a good idea. Tom Petch > > Harald > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf