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

["Daniel Brown" <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 2, 2007 4:55 PM, Frank Ellermann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Lixia Zhang wrote:
> > The remedy here may also include the cost to those people who
> > acted on a published RFC in its first 2 months.
>
> Yes, or months earlier, for the case I have in mind more than
> two years, millions of users, and a bunch of implementations.
> Most happily ignoring the eventual "opt-out" remedy, I guess.

    Conversely, why not allow a Draft to be published as an RFC in
that six-week period if there are no arguments or appeals, whereas an
appeal could potentially (a) restart the six-week clock, or (b) extend
the period from 42 to the full sixty days?

    Though again, it would be changing the rule for less than a 50%
gain in minimum time to publication.  I just thought I'd toss the idea
out there.

-- 
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107

If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.

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