IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Wed, 05 December 2007 02:22 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 1Izjtm-0007H4-GI; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:22:06 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izjti-00077C-8g for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:22:02 -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 1Izjtg-0000Cp-Uc for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:22:02 -0500
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Izjtf-0000Ie-G9 for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:21:59 +0000
Received: from c-180-160-165.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.180.160.165]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:21:59 +0000
Received: from nobody by c-180-160-165.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:21:59 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:23:57 +0100
Organization: <http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <fj51vq$h95$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <98D4A240EC5A372F3E88BCE4@htat43p-no.corp.google.com> <2666EB2A846BAC4BB2D7F593301A786801F19E3F@MUCXGC2.opentext.net>
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-180-160-165.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: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
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

Tobias Gondrom wrote:

> They just wouldn't know about an informal status as "being
> approved to be released shortly". 

That's a feature, "approved" isn't necessarily related to
"be released shortly", it can take years (or forever) to
resolve all normative references to not yet approved I-Ds.

> how about just shortening that period to about 45 days 
> instead of 60?

That's what John proposed (well, he said 42 days), but it
would be a huge effort to change the rules only for this
minimal effect.  Doing it together with something that's
worthwhile like Brian's deconstruction of RFC 2026 could
make sense.

 Frank


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email