[rfc-i] RFC Editor Queue Contents

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

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

OK, I've run a systematic check on XML versions of the queue and the 
IETF's ID status database, and here are the results. Some of them may 
require checking...:

Section: WORKING GROUP INFORMATIONAL/EXPERIMENTAL/BCP
draft-ietf-magma-snoop-10.txt: newer document draft-ietf-magma-snoop-11 
in status IESG
draft-ietf-rpsec-routing-threats-06.txt: newer document 
draft-ietf-rpsec-routing-threats-07 in status IESG


Section: NON-WORKING GROUP INFORMATIONAL/EXPERIMENTAL/BCP
draft-bradner-pbk-frame-04.txt: newer document 
draft-bradner-pbk-frame-06 in status IESG
draft-agrawal-sip-h323-interworking-reqs-05.txt: newer document 
draft-agrawal-sip-h323-interworking-reqs-07 in status IESG
draft-mills-sntp-v4-01.txt: newer document draft-mills-sntp-v4-00 in 
status IESG
draft-blake-wilson-xmldsig-ecdsa-08.txt: newer document 
draft-blake-wilson-xmldsig-ecdsa-09 in status IESG
draft-freed-mime-p4-04.txt: newer document draft-freed-mime-p4-06 in 
status IESG
draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-22.txt: newer document 
draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-23 in status IESG


Section: INDEPENDENT SUBMISSIONS UNDER RFC EDITOR REVIEW
draft-paskin-doi-uri-04.txt: newer document draft-paskin-doi-uri-05 in 
status expired
draft-cordell-lumas-01.txt: newer document draft-cordell-lumas-03 in 
status expired
draft-gpaterno-wireless-pppoe-12.txt: newer document 
draft-gpaterno-wireless-pppoe-14 in status expired
draft-zeilenga-ldup-sync-05.txt: newer document 
draft-zeilenga-ldup-sync-06 in status active
draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-06.txt: newer document 
draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-07 in status active
draft-arkko-pppext-eap-aka-12.txt: newer document 
draft-arkko-pppext-eap-aka-15 in status IESG
draft-haverinen-pppext-eap-sim-13.txt: newer document 
draft-haverinen-pppext-eap-sim-16 in status IESG
draft-shirasaki-dualstack-service-04.txt: newer document 
draft-shirasaki-dualstack-service-05 in status expired
draft-keri-local-anon-00.txt: newer document draft-keri-local-anon-01 in 
status expired
draft-holness-network-l2vpsp-02.txt: newer document 
draft-holness-network-l2vpsp-03 in status expired
draft-park-dna-ipv6dadopt-requirement-03.txt: newer document 
draft-park-dna-ipv6dadopt-requirement-04 in status expired
draft-riikonen-silc-spec-08.txt: newer document 
draft-riikonen-silc-spec-09 in status expired
draft-riikonen-silc-pp-08.txt: newer document draft-riikonen-silc-pp-09 
in status expired
draft-riikonen-silc-ke-auth-08.txt: newer document 
draft-riikonen-silc-ke-auth-09 in status expired
draft-riikonen-silc-commands-06.txt: newer document 
draft-riikonen-silc-commands-07 in status expired
draft-riikonen-flags-payloads-04.txt: newer document 
draft-riikonen-flags-payloads-05 in status expired
draft-riikonen-presence-attrs-03.txt: newer document 
draft-riikonen-presence-attrs-04 in status expired
draft-manning-opcode-discover-00.txt: newer document 
draft-manning-opcode-discover-01 in status expired


Best regards, Julian




-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:[phone]
From fred at cisco.com  Thu Jan 13 11:42:11 2005
From: fred at cisco.com (Fred Baker)
Date: Fri Jan 14 08:10:52 2005
Subject: [rfc-i] Re: [xml2rfc] request to deprecate numeric citations in
	xml2rfc
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

At 08:39 AM 01/13/05 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>I'm curious to know what is the RFC Editor's re-sorting requirement for
>numeric references. Thinking again about Aaron's original message, I'm
>not sure I understand.

I would guess that it is part of their procedures. They have a set of rules 
regarding what they consider "the right way to publish an RFC", and that is 
among the rules. 
From braden at ISI.EDU  Fri Jan 14 08:19:55 2005
From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden)
Date: Fri Jan 14 08:22:03 2005
Subject: [rfc-i] RFC Editor Queue Contents
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>



And your point was...?

Bob Braden
From julian.reschke at gmx.de  Fri Jan 14 08:48:01 2005
From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)
Date: Fri Jan 14 08:49:43 2005
Subject: [rfc-i] RFC Editor Queue Contents
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Bob Braden wrote:
> And your point was...?

...that there are documents in the RFC Editor queue under "INDEPENDENT 
SUBMISSIONS UNDER RFC EDITOR REVIEW" in status ISR which since have been 
updated, and thus should either removed from the queue (if they are 
already in IESG processing) or have to re-enter the queue as new 
submissions.

Am I missing something here?

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:[phone]
From Kurt at OpenLDAP.org  Sat Jan 15 10:29:32 2005
From: Kurt at OpenLDAP.org (Kurt D. Zeilenga)
Date: Sat Jan 15 10:31:57 2005
Subject: [rfc-i] RFC Editor Queue Contents
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

At 08:48 AM 1/14/2005, Julian Reschke wrote:
>Bob Braden wrote:
>>And your point was...?
>
>...that there are documents in the RFC Editor queue under "INDEPENDENT SUBMISSIONS UNDER RFC EDITOR REVIEW" in status ISR which since have been updated, and thus should either removed from the queue (if they are already in IESG processing) or have to re-enter the queue as new submissions.

Some I-Ds were simply refreshed (no changes other than
dates/revision number) by the author as they got removed
of the repository due to 6 mo expiration.  I did this for
at least one of my individual submissions (with note to RFC
Editor).  And, I surely hope, that I do not lose my place
in the queue simple for refreshing the I-D.

In other cases, it possible (though I am guessing here) that
the RFC Editor asked the author to make some changes.  I don't
see why such documents should lose there place in the queue
either.

Also, I have no problem allowing authors to make minor editorial
changes to I-Ds in the queue, as long as they coordinate those
changes with the RFC Editor and the RFC Editor has no objection.
This for the simple reason that it might save the RFC Editor
later on (like during AUTH48).

Hence, I have to disagree that documents should, in general,
be removed from the queue if updated.  I believe whether or not
the updated document should be resubmitted or not is best left to
the discretion of the RFC Editor.

Kurt