Re: FW: Last Call: <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code) to Experimental RFC

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

 



Hi Martin,

On 01/25/2013 09:36 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> I don't know about the last time it happened, but I know about
> one time in Nov-2009 in the TLS WG (now rfc5746).

I recall that and agree with the sequence of events you
describe, but I'm not sure that that situation is
relevant when considering this draft, for two reasons:

- First, that was the IETF in security-incident-handling
mode, and that's just different from normal process for
us, whether fast-tracked or not. Its in the nature of things
that the vast majority of security incidents don't
directly affect IETF protocols so as to require a
backwards incompatible change. So I think that was a
highly unusual case. (And let's hope things stay that
way.)

- Second, there was significant controversy within the
WG before the last calls, (with many hundreds of mails;-)
so a set of WG chairs that chose to try a fast-track
experiment in such circumstances would be crazy basically.
(Remember, we're only talking about an experiment here.)

As for Eliot's question, I don't recall any case when
a WG skipped WGLC. Even if its not part of 2026, right
now it's a de-facto but mandatory part of the process
as far as I can see. I'd be interested if there are cases
where WGLC was skipped, esp. if its been regularly done.

S.



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