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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 14 December 2007 00:17 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 1J2yF6-0002vd-CX; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:17:28 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2yF4-0002tp-Vi for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:17:27 -0500
Received: from woodstock.binhost.com ([8.8.40.152]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2yF4-0006cu-Hm for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:17:26 -0500
Received: (qmail 26623 invoked by uid 0); 14 Dec 2007 00:17:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com) (71.178.3.192) by woodstock.binhost.com with SMTP; 14 Dec 2007 00:17:17 -0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:17:15 -0500
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
Cc: iab@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.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
Message-Id: <E1J2yF6-0002vd-CX@megatron.ietf.org>

The discussion of this topic has died down, so it is time for me to 
make a consensus call.  It is quite clear to me that the community 
does not want to delay the publication of RFCs.  Therefore, in this 
note, I am asking the RFC Editor to publish RFCs as soon as Auth48 is complete.

If there is a successful appeal against the approval of an 
Internet-Draft, then the IESG will offer a remedy.  One possible 
remedy is to classify the RFC as Historic, and another possible 
remedy is to progress a new RFC that obsoletes the earlier one and 
contains some appropriate correction.  These remedies are attractive 
because no new processes or procedures are needed.  Another possible 
remedy might be to withdraw the RFC.  This remedy is not as 
attractive because there is no procedure to do it.  However, this 
discussion has raised a few situations where this might be considered 
the appropriate action.

The IAB, in their oversight role, must approve the general policy 
followed by the RFC Editor.  So, I am asking the IAB to consider the 
potential need to withdraw an RFC.  Hopefully this will never be 
needed, but some thought about the way that it would be handled will 
be useful, just in case.

Many thanks,
   Russ Housley
   IETF Chair


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf