The LC review will be very weak in terms of quality if we often do this kind of calls (it seems not often done), but I think if reviewers that want to review these drafts, send comments saying we need more time for such LC, there is always the AD responsibility to make more time available if there were people to do the job. Delaying I-Ds also is not a good process quality while we see no much volunteering reviews from the community (less than 5 reviews per I-D). So do you mean you will want to review or you mean that others MAY want to review but they will leave it, so this LC is attacking.
AB
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:54 AM, t.p. <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I see that we have been granted a fortnight to review eight,
inter-related, httpbis I-Ds, comprising over 300 pages, ending in the
course of IETF88 and in the run-up to a meeting when everyone comes out
of aestivation and the mailing lists are inundated.
Seems like a DoS attack to me.
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@xxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 2:25 PM
Subject: Last Call:
<draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08.txt>(Initial Hypertext
Transfer Protocol (HTTP) AuthenticationScheme Registrations) to
Informational RFC
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Hypertext Transfer Protocol
Bis
> WG (httpbis) to consider the following document:
> - 'Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Authentication Scheme
> Registrations'
> <draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08.txt> as
Informational
> 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 2013-11-04. 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 document registers Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
> authentication schemes which have been defined in standards-track
> RFCs before the IANA HTTP Authentication Scheme Registry was
> established.
>
>
> Note that this document is part of a set, which should be reviewed
together:
>
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations
> * draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations
>
> The file can be obtained via
>
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrati
ons/
>
> Once IESG evaluation begins, IESG discussion can be tracked via
>
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrati
ons/ballot/
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>