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

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

On 2007-12-03 22:49, Robert Elz wrote:
...
> Everyone (almost everyone) seems to be assuming that getting  the RFC
> published as quickly as possible is the aim.   Why?   What does actual
> appearance of the file in the directories really change?   

It's the instant of formal publication, and that changes at least
two things:

1. It allows other SDOs that require a normative citation to proceed
with *their* publication process, in order to meet their own deadlines.
This has been a much more frequent situation than appeals in recent
years (with ITU-T and 3GPP being the SDOs mainly concerned, iirc).

2. It triggers action by product developers and writers of RFPs,
especially those not actively involved in the IETF. The RFC name
is powerful enough that there really is an impact - people *do*
wait until the RFC comes out, or hear about things for the first
time then.

> Sure, it makes
> access a little easier, but that's it (and I guess that now, we could have
> a temporary placeholder installed, a file called rfcNNNN.2b or something,
> containing the URL of the I-D that will become the RFC when the editing
> process is finished - I personally doubt it is necessary, but it could be
> done).

The RFC Editor hates to reveal RFC numbers until publication is
a certainty. There is an unofficial list of approved but not published
drafts, however, at http://rtg.ietf.org:8080/Test/parking
(assuming it still works - I'm off line and can't check).

     Brian


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