Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com> Mon, 03 December 2007 01:35 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 1Iz0Dd-0001Du-Nm; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:35:33 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz0Db-0001Cv-LC; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:35:31 -0500
Received: from robin.verisign.com ([65.205.251.75]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz0DZ-0006h6-S2; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:35:31 -0500
Received: from MOU1WNEXCN02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (mailer2.verisign.com [65.205.251.35]) by robin.verisign.com (8.12.11/8.13.4) with ESMTP id lB31UQOl003274; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:30:26 -0800
Received: from MOU1WNEXMB09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.25.15.197]) by MOU1WNEXCN02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:34:14 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:34:14 -0800
Message-ID: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615570462D9@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.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: Acg0huFcEmwQt4fCTvqcQnCXzeZQawAxbtx4
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, ietf@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2007 01:34:14.0520 (UTC) FILETIME=[9CD74780:01C8354C]
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: bf422c85703d3d847fb014987125ac48
Cc: iab@ietf.org, 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
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1687649753=="
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Only issue I would raise here is don't expire the ID if this situation arises... If there is an IESG action and an ID folk can read that is going to work for most people. Don't publish the rfc before the appeals counter expires, there lies all sorts of bad stuff and confusion. Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 05:58 PM Pacific Standard Time To: Alexey Melnikov; ietf@ietf.org Cc: iab@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months? Alexey: The latter. If the Auth48 completes before the 60 day appeal timer has expired, then the RFC Editor will hold off on publication until the 60 days have gone by. Russ P.S. A document that I wrote was the first document to get snagged in this situation. I guess it is only fair.... It got published yesterday. At 06:54 PM 12/1/2007, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >Russ, > >IETF Chair wrote: > >>While we figure out what policy we want, I have asked the RFC Editor to >>not publish any IESG approved documents until their appeal timer has >>expired. I also challenged the RFC Editor to move things along so fast >>that this matters. I suspect they can. Which means that the whole IETF >>community needs to help the leadership figure out the appropriate policy >>before the rapid processing of Internet-Draft documents into RFCs becomes >>the norm. >> >I would like to ask a clarifying question: does this mean that RFC >editors are not going to start editing the document until after 2 >months since approval of a document, or does it mean that RFC >editors start editing right away, can issue AUTH48 request, but will >delay publication until after 2 months? > >I think the latter is better, because (a) appeals are not that >frequent and (b) AUTH48 usually takes way longer than 2 days ;-). > >Regards, >Alexey > >P.S. I apologize in advance for asking the question before reading >the whole thread. Maybe it was already asked. > > > _______________________________________________ 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
- 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