--On Saturday, 01 December, 2007 13:59 +0100 Frank Ellermann
<nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Tom Petch wrote:
>
>> a 60 day hold seems rather a good idea.
>
> Indeed, unless somebody transforms John's proposal "6 weeks"
> in an ION and/or 2026 update, or whatever red tape cutting
> this needs. If appeals are drafted by a kind of community
> this needs time (e.g. to figure out who read the relevant
> "procdoc" RFCs... ;-)
Frank, while figuring out what we are doing and documenting it
would certainly be a good idea, my suggestion was carefully
written to be feasible without any action as formal as opening
2026. The IESG clearly has the authority today (if only because
the RFC Editor believes that they do) to ask for a publication
hold. All it would take to implement that part of my suggestion
would be an announcement that, while the appeal window remains
at two months, any appeals that intend to ask for a publication
hold must be announced in some substantive way within some much
shorter time.
Whether or not publication delays are then granted might, as I
suggested, depend on joint IESG/IAB decisions about the level of
possible damage and merit of the appeal. But, as many others
have pointed out, the cases are few in which significant damage
would be done by publishing and then changing status and/or
posting a follow-up. I'd even suggest that a document that was
significant enough to achieve IETF consensus as measured by the
IESG --even if that measurement is overturned on appeal-- is a
document that would normally deserve publication as a "path not
traveled" independent or individual submission.
That view argues that, in the rare cases in which a publication
delay might be justified, someone who thinks one is needed
should ask (presumably by posting a notice of intent to appeal
with that request and justification) really quickly, before the
RFC Editor can review, publish, and post _however_ short that
time is. I'd then expect the IESG to ask that publication be
suspended until they and the IAB can sort out whether a delay
while the appeal is filed and sorted out is appropriate. But,
again, while an ION to record whatever the plan is would be
appropriate, I don't think we would be doing ourselves a favor
by turning this into a big deal with a lot of formal procedures
and cutoffs.
As I think more about it, harm is more likely to be caused by
IANA registrations specified in a document as requiring IETF or
IESG approval and then needing to undo such registrations after
an appeal than by publication of the document itself. As far as
I know, we have never insisted on a two month hold for such
registrations: we just assume that we can deprecate them if we
have to.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf