IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Thu, 29 November 2007 00:30 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 1IxXIE-0005rH-Ij; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:30:14 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxXID-0005r7-DA for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:30:13 -0500
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxXIB-0003BX-5I for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:30:13 -0500
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IxXHz-0003z5-Ix for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:29:59 +0000
Received: from c-180-160-166.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.180.160.166]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:29:59 +0000
Received: from nobody by c-180-160-166.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:29:59 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:31:51 +0100
Organization: <http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <fil15s$on$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <E1IxTPt-0006r4-ST@ietf.org> <474DD597.9040208@gmail.com> <CC3C6CC7EE08DA90C239082B@p3.JCK.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-180-160-166.hh.dial.de.ignite.net
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
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
Reply-To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
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

John C Klensin wrote:

> Of course, if an appeal is actually filed, it would
> be sensible to hold publication until it is resolved.

+1  

That would be two months, plus another two months after
the decision if an appeal was filed and its resolution
was unsatisfactory - after all the IESG checks its own
approval, it should be unusual that the first round has
any other effect than an "are you sure ?" question for
very simple problems.

> I don't see any possible reason why we need to give
> people two months to get an appeal filed: a month or,
> at most, six weeks ought to be more than sufficient.

Now with Brian's procdoc ION six weeks might be enough.

It took me longer without it to find RFC 3710 and its
"incompatibility" with RFC 2418 more than 3 years ago.

 Frank


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email