[rfc-i] independent submissions to RFC Editor

[julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)]

Bob Braden wrote:
>   *>  From a procedural point of view it would be nice if ID's that are in 
>   *> the RFC Editor's queue would not expire after 6 months (do they right now?).
>   *> 
> 
> The Secretariat is not supposed to expire I-Ds that are in the RFC
> Editor queue.  That's the theory... what the practice is, we are
> unsure.

I just checked with the top entries from 
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html>, section "INDEPENDENT SUBMISSIONS 
UNDER RFC EDITOR REVIEW", and sure enough, they all seem to have expired.

Furthermore, there seems to be an unfortunate disconnect between the 
queue and the IETF's p.o.v., for instance,

   http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html#draft-haverinen-pppext-eap-sim

appears as

   2004/04/06-I  draft-haverinen-pppext-eap-sim-13.txt
   ISR
   H. Haverinen, Ed., J. Salowey, Ed.
   Extensible Authentication Protocol Method for GSM Subscriber Identity
   Modules (EAP-SIM)
   Bytes: 210413

while the IETF says:

   <id name="draft-haverinen-pppext-eap-sim-16" date="2004-12-27" 
status="IESG"/>

   (home-made XML format of 
<http://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/all_id.txt>).

So the document has been revised three times, and has been submitted to 
the IESG for publication). At a minimum this means that the RFC Editor 
Queue needs some systematic cleanup and may in fact be not as long as it 
seems :-)


Best regards, Julian


-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:[phone]
From rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org  Thu Jan 13 09:34:17 2005
From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org (RFC Editor)
Date: Thu Jan 13 09:37:06 2005
Subject: [rfc-i] RFC Editor Queue Contents
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Geoff,

The entry for RFC 3668 refers to the republication of RFC 3668.  The
IESG sent us a notice to republish this document with a slight
modification, but there was no ID issued.  Our way of entering this
document in our queue was to enter it as RFC3668bis.  

RFC 3302 is listed in our queue to reflect our need to move this
document to a draft standard.  However, we cannot do this until
<draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-14.txt> and
<draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-v2-01.txt> have been published.  The RFC
3302 entry was listed so users would know we did not forget about
this action. 

Please let us know if this is unclear or if you believe there are
changes necessary.

Thank you.

RFC Editor


On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:53:12PM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
> On a matter related to queued drafts I was looking through the RFC Editor 
> Queue (http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html) and I noticed queue entries 
> for RFC 3668 (in AUTH state, evidently),  RFC 3302 (in REF state)
> 
> Are these genuine RFC Editor queue entries? What work needs to be done to 
> these documents post RFC publication?
> 
> regards,
> 
>    Geoff
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
From gih at apnic.net  Thu Jan 13 12:44:09 2005
From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston)
Date: Thu Jan 13 12:50:44 2005
Subject: [rfc-i] RFC Editor Queue Contents
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Thanks for this clarification

regards,

   Geoff

At 04:34 AM 14/01/2005, RFC Editor wrote:
>Geoff,
>
>The entry for RFC 3668 refers to the republication of RFC 3668.  The
>IESG sent us a notice to republish this document with a slight
>modification, but there was no ID issued.  Our way of entering this
>document in our queue was to enter it as RFC3668bis.
>
>RFC 3302 is listed in our queue to reflect our need to move this
>document to a draft standard.  However, we cannot do this until
><draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-14.txt> and
><draft-ietf-fax-tiff-fx-reg-v2-01.txt> have been published.  The RFC
>3302 entry was listed so users would know we did not forget about
>this action.
>
>Please let us know if this is unclear or if you believe there are
>changes necessary.
>
>Thank you.
>
>RFC Editor
>
>
>On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:53:12PM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
> > On a matter related to queued drafts I was looking through the RFC Editor
> > Queue (http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html) and I noticed queue entries
> > for RFC 3668 (in AUTH state, evidently),  RFC 3302 (in REF state)
> >
> > Are these genuine RFC Editor queue entries? What work needs to be done to
> > these documents post RFC publication?
> >
> > regards,
> >
> >    Geoff
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rfc-interest mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest