On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 12:10 PM Christopher Wood <caw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2020, at 12:30 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> With regard to citing RFC 5742, I will leave it to the judgment of the
> document shepherd and AD as to whether they believe that is called for..
> It seems more distracting than useful to me, but I will act as they direct.
For the reason above, I do not think citing RFC 5742 is necessary.
There are 4 cases that could happen now:
Document Actions (WG) [ No IETF Last Call Issued ]
Document Actions (WG) [ Last Call Issued, No Consensus ]
Document Actions (Individual to AD) [ No IETF Last Call Issued ]
Document Actions (Individual to AD) [ No IETF Last Call Issued ]
Document Actions (Individual to AD) [ Last Call Issued, No Consensus ]
For each of these cases, there will be some interaction with RFC 5742 if the document is to be published on another stream (the alternative proposed in the draft).
Whether or not this draft is edited, it would be helpful to know what people think is going to happen to these cases. No publication at all? Or publication with one of the IESG messages in 5742? I looked for some Informational and Experimental documents languishing in the IESG queue, since the authors don't seem comfortable discussing the concrete examples they are reacting to.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-seantek-ldap-pkcs9/ (676 days ago)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gutmann-scep/ (153 days ago)
IESG reviews that result in case #4 or #5 from RFC 5742 would likely lead to no publication at all. As others have pointed out, the RFC Editor could theoretically ignore this, but that doesn't seem likely in today's environment.
It's not clear if this proposal intends to leave some documents unpublished (maybe that is ok, but it should be clear).
thanks,
Rob
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
