RE: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
"Wassim Haddad" <wassim.haddad@ericsson.com> Wed, 28 November 2007 21:15 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 1IxUFw-0003ru-Dw; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:15:40 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxUFt-0003nR-Bk; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:15:37 -0500
Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxUFs-0002Km-TZ; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:15:37 -0500
Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lASLFZMF013105; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:15:35 -0600
Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:15:35 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:15:33 -0500
Message-ID: <95D8C1105D54EB41864F8831E6C4EB75021C81C3@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
Thread-Index: AcgyAhGV42CKNgf9TUeA4LtjHodIQgAAIRtl
References: <E1IxTPt-0006r4-ST@ietf.org> <474DD597.9040208@gmail.com> <CC3C6CC7EE08DA90C239082B@p3.JCK.COM>
From: Wassim Haddad <wassim.haddad@ericsson.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Nov 2007 21:15:35.0313 (UTC) FILETIME=[D1053810:01C83203]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 082a9cbf4d599f360ac7f815372a6a15
Cc: Wassim Haddad <wassim.haddad@ericsson.com>, iab@ietf.org, 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
Hi, --On Thursday, 29 November, 2007 09:54 +1300 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 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. => I also think that in general, an approach like the above is needed. However, in some cases when for example, there is a consensus call on a "sensitive" draft on a specific ML, we get _sometime_ the opportunity to meet people who have never posted an email before to the specific ML... Of course, people complained about that as they just confuse the process. My point is that the appeal will/should also be carefully examined before it impacts a particular RFC or ...? Regards, Wassim H. _______________________________________________ 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
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Eric Rescorla
- Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than… IETF Chair
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- RE: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Wassim Haddad
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Ted Hardie
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Leslie Daigle
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Russ Housley
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Cullen Jennings
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Sam Hartman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Eric Rescorla
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Tim Polk
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Paul Hoffman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Sam Hartman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Sam Hartman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Eric Rescorla
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Tom.Petch
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Norbert Bollow
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Eric Rescorla
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Dave Crocker
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Jari Arkko
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Sam Hartman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Paul Hoffman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Sam Hartman
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Bob Hinden
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Jari Arkko
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Russ Housley
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Bob Hinden
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … John C Klensin
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Bob Hinden
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Lixia Zhang
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Robert Elz
- OOXML (was Re: Should the RFC Editor...) Norbert Bollow
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Norbert Bollow
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Tom.Petch
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Daniel Brown
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Robert Elz
- RE: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Tobias Gondrom
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Frank Ellermann
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Loa Andersson
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … JP Vasseur
- Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less … Russ Housley