Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Sat, 01 December 2007 19:39 UTC
Return-path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyYBW-0007Br-P9; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:39:30 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyYBU-00077d-CK; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:39:28 -0500
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyYBT-0003hB-Ms; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:39:28 -0500
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 36C4E217C4; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:39:27 +0100 (CET)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-aee9fbb00000459d-ae-4751b86f02c8
Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.124]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 0F8C5217B5; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:39:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:39:26 +0100
Received: from [138.85.12.58] ([138.85.12.58]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:39:26 +0100
Message-ID: <4751B86B.9050306@ericsson.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:39:23 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <E1IxTPt-0006r4-ST@ietf.org> <474E61A4.2000201@alvestrand.no> <010901c83339$b56e0d20$0601a8c0@pc6> <474FF7E2.7060107@alvestrand.no> <475063D9.9040806@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <475063D9.9040806@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Dec 2007 19:39:26.0635 (UTC) FILETIME=[E1DC0FB0:01C83451]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, iab@ietf.org, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, iesg <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Brian E Carpenter skrev: > On 2007-12-01 00:45, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> Tom.Petch wrote: >>> I recall a recent occasion when the IESG withdrew its approval, for >>> draft-housley-tls-authz-extns >>> a document that both before and after its approval generated a lot of >>> heat, >>> within and without a WG. >>> >>> Presumably the expedited process would, or at least could, have seen >>> that >>> published as an RFC. >>> >>> With that example in mind, a 60 day hold seems rather a good idea. >>> >> In that case, it went into the RFC Editor queue on June 30,, 2006, and >> was yanked from the queue on February 26, 2007 - 8 months later. >> >> According to the "third last call" announcement: >> >> On June 27, 2006, the IESG approved "Transport Layer Security (TLS) >> Authorization Extensions," (draft-housley-tls-authz-extns) as a >> proposed standard. On November 29, 2006, Redphone Security (with whom >> Mark Brown, a co-author of the draft is affiliated) filed IETF IPR >> disclosure 767. >> >> it was five months between approval and the IPR disclosure. >> >> A two-month hold wouldn't have caught it. >> (No idea why it was still hanging there long enough for the IPR >> disclosure to catch up with it...) > > In any case, I would much rather have seen that published and later > declared Historic than hold up all other RFCs. It isn't as if the > IETF can control what actually gets implemented and deployed > in any case - so why on earth does it *matter*? Whereas getting > the vast majority of RFCs published promptly *does* matter. > I am actually worried with the inter SDO implications of blocking publication for 2 months. Unless we actually always block publication for 2 month for approval this doesn't help. So what are we going to say to other SDO and they ask, can you do your best to get this document published. And then we have to say, well the document can be made ready but we can't for formal reasons provide it until 2 months have past. I think this would be going in the wrong direction on use cooperating with other SDOs. However, it clearly solves the issue with appeals and if it is IESG or IAB discretion whether the document is blocked or not. I actually are worried that people may use a "appeals always block publication" as way of forcing removal of ietf protocols from other SDOs specifications. The reality is that neither IESG or IAB can process appeals extremely quickly. Unless they are obvious bogus. Cheers Magnus Westerlund IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Eric Rescorla
- Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than… IETF Chair
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- RE: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Wassim Haddad
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Ted Hardie
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Leslie Daigle
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Russ Housley
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Cullen Jennings
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Sam Hartman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Eric Rescorla
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Tim Polk
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Paul Hoffman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Sam Hartman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Sam Hartman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Eric Rescorla
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Tom.Petch
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Norbert Bollow
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Eric Rescorla
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Dave Crocker
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Jari Arkko
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Sam Hartman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Paul Hoffman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Sam Hartman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Bob Hinden
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Jari Arkko
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Russ Housley
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Bob Hinden
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Bob Hinden
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Lixia Zhang
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Robert Elz
- OOXML (was Re: Should the RFC Editor...) Norbert Bollow
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Norbert Bollow
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Tom.Petch
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Daniel Brown
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Robert Elz
- RE: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Tobias Gondrom
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Loa Andersson
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … JP Vasseur
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Russ Housley