My read of this draft is that it eliminates the need for rough consensus at both the WG and IETF level. Basically the WG chair can just decide and even if the WG disagrees with the chair. If the WG does not have consensus in WGLC that they they do want to publish the draft, it still gets published. I realize from the email list discussions this may not be what the author of the draft intended but it is how I read this draft. Because of this, I am against approving this and also believe it would need to be BCP not experimental as it changes the fundamental process to approve PS drafts. The rest of this draft, the part about overlapping, is already allowed by the process today as the draft points out. The WGLC is not required at all, the AD processing and IETF LC can overlap. However, I think that the AD should do their processing before they LC the draft because that means they check it is ready before wasting the IESG and everyone else's time revving a document. AD processing can often be done in a few hours or less if the draft is ready. Generally, WGLC avoids late surprises which take more time in the long run but all of this is a general guideline and there are cases where it make sense to overlap all this and put it through. Thus I think it is good that the current process allows this to all be overlapped at the chair and AD discretion. I encourage the AD & Chairs to overlap where they think it will 1) is appropriate 2) will speed things up and 3) the speed up actually helps the internet or some groups of users in a meaningful way. I'm certainly not against some chairs, ADs, etc trying to put a draft throughout quickly that they think is ready (running code or not) but I don't see the need for this change to the process. I also have a question for the each IESG member that I think is very relevant - Do all of you agree to only put discussed that meet the "Discuss Criteria" this draft refers too? I really hope you do. If you don't that raises even more issues for how this draft changes the process. Cullen On Jan 11, 2013, at 8:14 AM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > - 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code' > <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> as Experimental RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2013-02-08. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > This memo describes an optional, fast-track way to progress a working > group document to IESG review. It is provided as a process > experiment as defined in RFC 3933 for use when working group chairs > believe that there is running code that implements a working group > Internet-Draft. The motivation is to have the IETF process > explicitly consider running code, consistent with the IETF's overall > philosophy of running code and rough consensus. > > In this process all of working group last call, IETF last call, and > Area Director review are carried out in the same two week period. > Only comments that meet IESG Discuss criteria need to be addressed > during this stage, and authors are required to make any changes > within two weeks. > > This experiment will run for one year. > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft/ballot/ > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.