Comment: For some implementors only peripherally involved with IETF standards and process but looking at the new RFCs as "news" on standards it is well a difference whether its an RFC at the time they look or not. They just wouldn't know about an informal status as "being approved to be released shortly". However, I want to say that I find it excellent that the RFC Editors did make their job so good that we actually have the chance to have this "problem discussion". Maybe a quite pragmatic approach: Yes, RFC Editor should hold back until end of formal period for appeals, but how about just shortening that period to about 45 days instead of 60? Tobias > -----Original Message----- > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:41 PM > To: Tom.Petch; Lixia Zhang > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months? > > > > --On 3. desember 2007 10:09 +0100 "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > At the same time, I see the benefits of having the RFC now rather than > in > > February as minimal; early adopters adopt early and are proud to > announce > > in their marketing material that their product conforms to I-D > > draft-ietf-wg-enhanced-protocol. The date of the arrival of an RFC is > > irelevant to them. > > The people who actually care about whether something is an I-D or an RFC > are the people who write specifications (other bodies' standards, RFPs, > government mandates.... wherever they need a stable identifier). > > For the implementors, an I-D + the fact of approval is sufficient. For > those who write other documents, it's not - they need the RFC number. > > Harald > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf