Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-08.txt> (Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP

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

 



Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Are you saying that the existing review process
for direct submission or Independent Submission RFCs fails to detect
work that overlaps with WGs?

At least in one experience, I would not say it was a failure per se but more realistically, for many possible reasons, it simply fell through the cracks. If interested, I can provide offlist summary outline example.

Which is exactly why we do have a review process for non-WG RFCs.

Brian, no doubt. The IETF Review process and the procedures are in place for anyone to raise concerns and even appeal.

So in hindsight, it probably unrealistic to expect any IETF reviewer to catch consequential conflicts and in this case, I should of continued the appeal process as I had contemplated but several reasons I decided not to follow through. Only then can concerns be raised for proper IETF review.

Maybe to help alleviate possible concerns with fast-track RFCs and perhaps reduce IETF reviewer time and provide some guidance, a short pre-review questionnaire asking relevant questions designed to highlight any possible conflict as known by the author and something the Reviewers might wish to know about, might be appropriate.

Example questions might be:

   1) Is this RFC directly or indirectly related to one or more existing
      IETF Working Groups?  If so, please list them below and continue
      with the additional questions.

   2) Is there any concept in your RFC which is deemed out of scope
      in the related Working Group? If so, which state the out of
      scope concept(s) in itemized format.

   3) Is there any concept in your RFC which competes and/or conflicts
      with the chartered goals of the related Working Group?

   4) Was this RFC vetted by the Working Group? If so, what was the
      conclusion?

Please note: In no way am I stating that these type of non-WG RFC work should not be written, put to a stop or not accepted by the IETF reviewers. But with awareness, there be a reviewer problem solving suggestion to remove conflicts. Maybe it just a matter of word-smithing to make corrections. Again, if you wish, I can give you an example off-list to see why questions like these can help.


--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
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]