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

On 2007-11-29 10:14, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> At Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:54:47 +1300,
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:

<snip>

>> My conclusion is that the number of appeals is relatively low. I'd hate
>> for the low risk of having to roll back an approval to slow down all
>> publications. So my personal preference is to not hold up publication
>> (unless there is good reason to expect an appeal), but to add a new
>> RFC status, let's call it PROVISIONAL for the sake of argument, that
>> would be applied if an appeal is received within the 2 month window
>> but after publication. If the appeal succeeds, the status can be
>> changed as appropriate (likely to HISTORIC), and if the appeal fails
>> it can revert to its original value.
> 
> So, obviously it's important not conflate statements about what the
> rules *should* say with what they *do say*, but with that in mind, my
> reading of 2026 is that this isn't necessarily sufficient. Here's
> the relevant passage:
> 
> S 6.5.2.
>    If circumstances warrant, the IAB may direct that an IESG decision be
>    annulled, and the situation shall then be as it was before the IESG
>    decision was taken. The IAB may also recommend an action to the IESG,
>    or make such other recommendations as it deems fit. The IAB may not,
>    however, pre-empt the role of the IESG by issuing a decision which
>    only the IESG is empowered to make.
> 
> It seems to me that the situation of an existing RFC marked HISTORIC
> is pretty different from that of no RFC existing at all, so what
> ISTM that what you propose would require a change to 2026.

Very possibly. It's always struck me that "the situation shall
then be as it was before" is a rather unrealistic goal, since you
can't un-send email, un-publish a draft, cancel a past mailing
list suspension, etc. Decisions can be revoked, but their
physical consequences sometimes can't be. So in any case, that
phrase in 2026 probably needs qualification. (For example,
"insofar as this is materially possible".)

     Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf