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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2007-12-01 00:45, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Tom.Petch wrote:
>> I recall a recent occasion when the IESG withdrew its approval, for
>>  draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
>> a document that both before and after its approval generated a lot of 
>> heat,
>> within and without a WG.
>>
>> Presumably the expedited process would, or at least could, have seen that
>> published as an RFC.
>>
>> With that example in mind, a 60 day hold seems rather a good idea.
>>   
> In that case, it went into the RFC Editor queue on June 30,, 2006, and 
> was yanked from the queue on February 26, 2007 - 8 months later.
> 
> According to the "third last call" announcement:
> 
> On June 27, 2006, the IESG approved "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
> Authorization Extensions," (draft-housley-tls-authz-extns) as a
> proposed standard. On November 29, 2006, Redphone Security (with whom
> Mark Brown, a co-author of the draft is affiliated) filed IETF IPR
> disclosure 767.
> 
> it was five months between approval and the IPR disclosure.
> 
> A two-month hold wouldn't have caught it.
> (No idea why it was still hanging there long enough for the IPR 
> disclosure to catch up with it...)

In any case, I would much rather have seen that published and later
declared Historic than hold up all other RFCs. It isn't as if the
IETF can control what actually gets implemented and deployed
in any case - so why on earth does it *matter*? Whereas getting
the vast majority of RFCs published promptly *does* matter.

     Brian

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