IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Sat, 01 December 2007 12:57 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 1IyRuo-0002ZS-3N; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:57:50 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyRum-0002ZL-QX for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:57:48 -0500
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyRum-0000zE-8O for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:57:48 -0500
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IyRua-00030E-8b for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:57:36 +0000
Received: from c-180-160-112.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.180.160.112]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:57:36 +0000
Received: from nobody by c-180-160-112.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:57:36 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:59:26 +0100
Organization: <http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <firlnd$5h7$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <E1IxTPt-0006r4-ST@ietf.org> <474E61A4.2000201@alvestrand.no> <010901c83339$b56e0d20$0601a8c0@pc6>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-180-160-112.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: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199
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

Tom Petch wrote:

> a 60 day hold seems rather a good idea.

Indeed, unless somebody transforms John's proposal "6 weeks"
in an ION and/or 2026 update, or whatever red tape cutting
this needs.  If appeals are drafted by a kind of community 
this needs time (e.g. to figure out who read the relevant
"procdoc" RFCs... ;-)

 Frank


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email