Brian E Carpenter asked:
Can you be more specific? Are you talking about
a) drafts that appear in the WG with very mature text, so complete
the WG progress very quickly?
b) drafts that are direct submissions to the IESG, and go through
IETF Last Call and IESG review without coming near the WG?
c) drafts that are Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor,
so are only subject to minimal review by the IESG and are not
IETF documents at all?
And in case a) or b), are you talking about standards track and BCP
documents, or about informational or experimental ones?
Hi Brian,
From what I have experienced, it doesn't matter what the fast track
non-WG RFC status is - any status can have a surprising WG goal
changing influence.
I don't really see that as the main concern until it is a competing or
conflictive externally produced RFC, especially if it was originally
deem out of scope in a WG charter. IMO, in such a case, it should be
part of a WG charter change and a WG vetting process before it is made
into an RFC and/or allowed to change the WG goals.
I am not an expert with IETF procedures and I don't wish to call that
a "Loop Hole" but it appears to be one. It seems to me a two-maturity
level may inadvertently create more of these WG conflicts without the
proper due diligence to watch for these type of situations.
Maybe the experience in the DKIM WG was an exception and not the rule
typical of a WG, but if was a new reflection of an "IETF change"
making it more possible to fast track RFCs, the review process needs
to take into account the consequences it can have in any related WG.
Is that a time problem? A WG Chair/AD issue? Too much work for the AD
reviews? Not enough synergism of among all parties? I can't say and
quite maybe it was just an exceptional experience and not the norm.
But I believe a watchdog for these type of possibilities will help.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf