Re: Another twist on my proposal

Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no Fri, 05 May 1995 13:45 UTC

Message-Id: <199505051346.PAA00837@dale.uninett.no>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: Mike O'Dell <mo@uunet.uu.net>
cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: Another twist on my proposal
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 05 May 1995 08:12:49 EDT." <QQyoke17902.199505051212@rodan.UU.NET>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 05 May 1995 15:46:17 +0200

Mike,
my feeling is that putting the IESG review into the loop for *all*
RFCs is a Good Thing.
Currently we have a process where:
- If the RFC editor thinks we should, we have 2 weeks for comment
- If we don't comment in time, it gets published

An alternative process would be:
- The RFC editor passes EVERYTHING to the IESG
- The IESG either accepts as informational (or whatever), or tells the
  authors why they won't do it
- The authors can then publish through the RFC editor, with a front page
  saying that this was rejected by the IESG

In my ignorant opinion, most gibberish isn't evil, it is simply misguided.

(BTW, I looked at RFC 1795. There is no disclaimer from the IESG on the
front page, so either it isn't too gibberishy, and we would have accepted
it for Informational, or we didn't get around to washing our hands of it.
Don't ask me what status it deserves.....)

                      Harald A

Another twist on my proposal Mike O'Dell
Re: Another twist on my proposal Harald.T.Alvestrand
Re: Another twist on my proposal Joel Halpern
Re: Another twist on my proposal Frank Kastenholz