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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

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...)

               Harald


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