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]

 



Tom.Petch wrote:
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.
In that case, it went into the RFC Editor queue on June 30,, 2006, and was yanked from the queue on February 26, 2007 - 8 months later.

According to the "third last call" announcement:

On June 27, 2006, the IESG approved "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Authorization Extensions," (draft-housley-tls-authz-extns) as a
proposed standard. On November 29, 2006, Redphone Security (with whom
Mark Brown, a co-author of the draft is affiliated) filed IETF IPR
disclosure 767.

it was five months between approval and the IPR disclosure.

A two-month hold wouldn't have caught it.
(No idea why it was still hanging there long enough for the IPR disclosure to catch up with it...)

              Harald


_______________________________________________

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]