Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Thu, 29 November 2007 12:19 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 1IxiMD-0002CC-QD; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:19:05 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxiMA-0002BA-TW; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:19:02 -0500
Received: from mail.songbird.com ([208.184.79.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxiM9-0001rR-Ap; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:19:02 -0500
Received: from [172.17.182.144] ([216.94.57.194]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lATCIWTc009783 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:18:34 -0800
Message-ID: <474EAEAB.9070702@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:20:59 -0500
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <E1IxTPt-0006r4-ST@ietf.org> <474DD597.9040208@gmail.com><CC3C6CC7EE08DA90C239082B@p3.JCK.COM> <E1IxV26-0006Ne-TG@megatron.ietf.org> <40F79287-713F-4167-8DC3-0DA35D565D54@cisco.com> <23E55AFB-7AE6-4142-9ACC-0C2969B5D1DF@nist.gov>
In-Reply-To: <23E55AFB-7AE6-4142-9ACC-0C2969B5D1DF@nist.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228
Cc: IAB <iab@ietf.org>, IESG 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
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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
Tim Polk wrote: > There is no way to ensure that documents aren't published until *all* the > appeals timers expire. Given that, let's encourage the RFC Editor to > publish when ready, and we can concentrate on establishing a process that > works when the appeal concerns a published document. +1 RFCs are "withdrawn" for a variety of reasons, already. A successful appeal would be merely one more. While no, "historic" is not metemantically identical to nevering having been published, it is sufficient that it means "not approved by the IETF". Approval-vs-nonApproval seems like the most pragmatic test of "reversal". The IETF approval process already has significant points of review and control. While this final-stage appeal potential is real, it does not happen with any frequency and the dangerous community impact of publishing an RFC that quickly gets moved to historic are small, possibly nil. Hence, no new mechanisms are need, although I do think it was useful to raise the question for discussion in this thread. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ 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