Re: RFC Editor doc approvals (RE: [mpowr] Mailing List Management)

--On Wednesday, 24 December, 2003 00:29 -0800 Harald Tveit 
Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

> changing the subject, since this has gone far away from list
> management...
>
> --On 24. desember 2003 00:13 -0500 John C Klensin
> <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>
>> 	* At the time 2026 was written, the RFC Editor timeout
>> 	for IESG review of an independent submission document
>> 	was two weeks.  If the IESG needed more time, it was
>> 	required to ask for it from the RFC Editor, typically
>> 	specifying a reason.  And the IESG approval mechanism
>> 	was a call for objections with an internal timeout.
>> 	Now, the timeout is four weeks, the IESG apparently
>> 	routinely simply ignores that timeout, and the approval
>> 	process requires a formal vote and writeup.   Is this
>> 	progress?
>
> corrections:
>
> 1) as far as I remember, the rfc editor never did anything
> when the timeout expired. not even when it was 2 weeks.

If the RFC Editor is following this list, I'll let them respond. 
But my recollection is that  "never did anything" was the result 
of a clear understanding that the IESG would be very irritated 
if they did so and, perhaps, would even attempt to retaliate.

> 2) the IESG approval mechanism at the moment is "one
> (shepherding) AD has to have read the document and put it on
> the IESG agenda, no objection must be raised when he does".
> 3) no formal writeup is needed for approval.

My apologies for misunderstanding this.  I have been told, by 
different ADs at different times, that the document had not been 
put on the ballot because he or she hadn't gotten around to 
doing a writeup for said ballot and/or that the clearance hadn't 
gone back to the RFC Editor because no one had gotten around to 
writing up the approval note.  Perhaps I misunderstood.

At the same time, it would be far more consistent with the 
letter of 2026 that, if the IESG does not succeed in doing a 
review within some fixed period of time, the RFC Editor takes 
that as acceptance and goes ahead and publishes.   How would 
today's IESG feel about the RFC Editor doing that?

And you will note that I didn't raise the problem of IESG review 
going far beyond the "conflict with existing IETF WG activity" 
and "harm to the Internet" criteria set out in 2026.  This time 
:-(

> the appearance of "ballots" for these items in the tracker
> recently is because it's easier to reuse the mechanism than to
> be sure we remember who had the objection and why, not because
> we wish to add more formality or delay to the process.

Again, I picked up the "ballot" terminology from a couple of 
different ADs, not directly from the categories in the tracker. 
But, again, sorry for any misunderstanding.

I suspect this again illustrates the importance of the IESG's 
being much more clear to the community about the procedures it 
has adopted and is following.

regards,
      john

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