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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, 29 November, 2007 09:54 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I thought about this a bit when the RFC Editor started to
> catch up and
> accelerate; it's excellent news that it's no longer a
> theoretical
> question, so kudos to the Editor team (and IANA, who also have
> a role
> to play in getting many RFCs out).
> 
> 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.

I'd like to see something like the above combined with a shorter
window, maybe at two levels ("hold publication until..." and
"provisional until...").  Of course, if an appeal is actually
filed, it would be sensible to hold publication until it is
resolved.  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.

     john


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