IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> Thu, 06 December 2007 03:22 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 1J07Jk-00021I-FT; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:22:28 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J07Jh-0001jG-Ar; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:22:25 -0500
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J07Jh-0000QF-0s; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:22:25 -0500
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Dec 2007 22:22:24 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB63MOpC019385; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:22:24 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lB63MG0i020510; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 03:22:24 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-213.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.112]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:22:16 -0500
Received: from 10.21.119.62 ([10.21.119.62]) by xmb-rtp-213.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.112]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 03:22:15 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:22:09 -0800
From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>, bob.hinden@nokia.com
Message-ID: <C37CAAE1.1A043%jvasseur@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
Thread-Index: Acg3ty8rbZ/CGqOqEdyp5QANk8WjQA==
In-Reply-To: <47571A01.6050509@levkowetz.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2007 03:22:16.0287 (UTC) FILETIME=[3383AEF0:01C837B7]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=952; t=1196911344; x=1197775344; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20<jvasseur@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Should=20the=20RFC=20Editor=20publish=20an=20RFC=20in =20less=20than=202=20months? |Sender:=20 |To:=20Henrik=20Levkowetz=20<henrik@levkowetz.com>, =20<bob.hinden@nokia.c om>; bh=KKiYQj92w0PPiiMgh71bfyOmcZjiEqcQuaE+szOVl/Q=; b=d+VsElYGzmqlF5MLElU2/42wJ8FzK8wLWqG96KOCNFcrQdjMva9MgoXMWNAu1aFC9rScChja REqNA3nqqTwrZpdjQkqaAQmBb5oukyup5ytmMmXl1VxxGCxevZ+6STva;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
Cc: iab@ietf.org, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, iesg <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>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

+1


> From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:37:05 -0800
> To: <bob.hinden@nokia.com>
> Cc: <iab@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, iesg <iesg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
> 
> 
> 
> On 2007-12-02 10:38 Bob Hinden said the following:
> ...
>>> Based on the past record, we're talking about something that
>>> happens 0.58% of the time, or less.
>>> 
>>> Of course, predicting the future from the past is iffy; there have
>>> been 10 appeals in 2006 and only one (not document related) in
>>> 2007, so "it varies".
>> 
>> Thanks for looking at the data.
>> 
>> It seems to me that we shouldn't be delaying all new RFCs for a
>> problem that only occurs .58% of the time.
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> Henrik
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email