Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <[e-mail]>]

On 29 nov 2007, at 0:18, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> One easy solution to the problem is to not change anything in the  
> current IETF or RFC rules. If an RFC has been published before the  
> appeal is brought, and that appeal is ultimately successful, a new  
> RFC is issued that obsoletes the old RFC. That new RFC can  
> essentially be a NULL, although hopefully it would have an  
> explanation why an empty RFC is obsoleting a non-empty one. That new  
> RFC can also be partially populated; for example, if the resolution  
> of the appeal is to pull a contentious section or appendix.

> Given the extreme rarity of the situation where an appeal leads to  
> non-publication or changed publication, it seems wasteful to create  
> new rules (and spend lots of time arguing about them) when no new  
> rules are needed.

++

Especially since presumably, an appealer would be motivated to stop  
publication of the RFC and file an appeal without delay rather than  
after 59 days.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf