Re: secdir review of draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-06

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Sam:

That said, I'm puzzled by the continued inclusion of "rejected
alternative bypass" as a reason to delay publication.  In section 4,
this document proposes that readers could be confused by the order of
publication of documents.  At the same time, this document is removing
the mandatory IESG note from independent submissions in favor of a new
header (defined in another doc, listed as a normative reference).  If
that header is sufficient to dispel confusion when it comes to the
substantive matters of "we haven't reviewed this", can't it also be
relied on to be adequate to avoid confusion arising from publication
order?  Accordingly, I suggest removing reason 3, as least so far as
"rejected alternative bypass" is concerned.

There are two scenarios to consider. They are AD-sponsored informational RFC and independent submission informational RFC.

1. AD-sponsored informational RFC

Here the title page will indicate IETF Stream for both documents. The publication of the rejected alternative prior to the standards-track document leaves a time period where people that are not watching carefully do not know that the standards-track alternative is in the works. If one only watches the RFC series, it is unclear that the other document is coming, and the first one indicates that is a product of the IETF.

Today, the AD will hold the rejected alternative until the standards-track document is in the RFC Editor queue, and the informational document will be published with a note indicating that a standards-track alternative is available in RFC xxxx.

2. Independent submission informational RFC

Here the title page will indicate that the standards-track document is part of the IETF Stream and that the rejected alternative will indicate that the informational document is part of the Independent Submission Stream. The publication of the rejected alternative prior to the standards-track document leaves a time period where people that are not watching carefully do not know that the standards-track alternative is in the works. If one only watches the RFC series, it is unclear that the other document is coming, but no one should be confused that the informational document was the product of the IETF.

Today, the IESG asks the RFC Editor to hold the rejected alternative until the standards-track document is in the RFC Editor queue, and the informational document will be published with a note indicating that a standards-track alternative is available in RFC xxxx. That is the point of the response you are questioning.

Russ
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]