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

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 08:27:10 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> > >  =09* At the time 2026 was written, the RFC Editor timeout  
> > >  =09for IESG review of an independent submission document  
> > >  =09was two weeks. 
> >
> >  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.

This thread is missing some fairly basic underpinnings that were true 
during the 1989-1993 period that I was an AD, which I generally call the 
start of the "modern" IETF:

1.  The RFC Editor operation was independent of the IETF, although it of 
course had a number of substantial points of coordination.

2. The IESG did not get to do a pocket veto on any documentfor which 
there was no serious claim it impacted existing IETF work or would 
likely have significant, negative impact on Internet operation.

In other words, folks, the RFC Editor engaged in a number of courtesies 
with the IETF, via the IESG, but was entirely free to exercise its own 
judgments about documents that did not originate in the IETF and did not 
seek standards status.

This has changed in recent years, much to the detriment of the open 
publication policy that used to hold true for the RFC series.  Now, it 
appears that the IESG gets a complete veto over any RFC, no matter its 
source or desired status.

d/

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