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

"Tobias Gondrom" <tgondrom@opentext.com> Wed, 05 December 2007 00:13 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 1IzhtB-0001yp-S6; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:13:21 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izht8-0001wp-Lm for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:13:18 -0500
Received: from mucmx01.ixos.de ([149.235.128.48]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izht7-0005QA-Vv for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:13:18 -0500
Received: from mucpm01.smtp.dmz.opentext.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mucmx01.ixos.de (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id lB50DAiY003017; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 01:13:10 +0100 (MET)
Received: from MUCXGC2.opentext.net (mucxg04.opentext.net [149.235.128.138]) by mucpm01.smtp.dmz.opentext.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lB50D8DN023001; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 19:13:09 -0500 (envelope-from tgondrom@opentext.com)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:13:05 +0100
Message-ID: <2666EB2A846BAC4BB2D7F593301A786801F19E3F@MUCXGC2.opentext.net>
In-Reply-To: <98D4A240EC5A372F3E88BCE4@htat43p-no.corp.google.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
Thread-Index: Acg2KDb6HkOW8aQoTJ6phhe+mWvR0AAqVKOA
X-Priority: 5
Priority: Non-Urgent
Importance: low
From: Tobias Gondrom <tgondrom@opentext.com>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus@dial.pipex.com>, Lixia Zhang <lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU>
X-Archived: msg.Ay2U7NQ:2007-12-05:mucpm01.smtp.dmz.opentext.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a
Cc: ietf@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

Comment: For some implementors only peripherally involved with IETF
standards and process but looking at the new RFCs as "news" on standards
it is well a difference whether its an RFC at the time they look or not.
They just wouldn't know about an informal status as "being approved to
be released shortly". 

However, I want to say that I find it excellent that the RFC Editors did
make their job so good that we actually have the chance to have this
"problem discussion". 

Maybe a quite pragmatic approach:
Yes, RFC Editor should hold back until end of formal period for appeals,
but how about just shortening that period to about 45 days instead of
60?

Tobias




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:41 PM
> To: Tom.Petch; Lixia Zhang
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2
months?
> 
> 
> 
> --On 3. desember 2007 10:09 +0100 "Tom.Petch"
<sisyphus@dial.pipex.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > At the same time, I see the benefits of having the RFC now rather
than
> in
> > February as minimal; early adopters adopt early and are proud to
> announce
> > in their marketing material that their product conforms to I-D
> > draft-ietf-wg-enhanced-protocol.  The date of the arrival of an RFC
is
> > irelevant to them.
> 
> The people who actually care about whether something is an I-D or an
RFC
> are the people who write specifications (other bodies' standards,
RFPs,
> government mandates.... wherever they need a stable identifier).
> 
> For the implementors, an I-D + the fact of approval is sufficient. For
> those who write other documents, it's not - they need the RFC number.
> 
>               Harald
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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