Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Tue, 02 November 2004 00:02 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24083; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 19:02:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1COmNM-00015C-D0; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 19:18:17 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1COlj9-0004dE-EI; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:36:43 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1COl8j-0008Mr-9C for rgchairs@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 17:59:05 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16432 for <rgchairs@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:59:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kahuna.telstra.net ([203.50.0.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1COlNi-0007TW-K1 for rgchairs@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:14:35 -0500
Received: from gihz1.apnic.net (issquid.telstra.net [203.50.0.177]) by kahuna.telstra.net (8.12.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id iA1Mvlch050618; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:57:48 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from gih@apnic.net)
Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.2.20041102091527.023a6ec0@kahuna.telstra.net>
X-Sender: gih@kahuna.telstra.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:17:39 +1100
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, John R Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [Rgchairs] thoughs about the IRTF
In-Reply-To: <6F8930B12DB00FCA154F29BB@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
References: <20041029083030.GE2249@james> <Pine.BSI.4.56.0410310022460.17494@tom.iecc.com> <F308DD21C5FEBD44F7D97DCC@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <Pine.BSI.4.56.0411011501320.27089@tom.iecc.com> <6F8930B12DB00FCA154F29BB@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:36:41 -0500
Cc: iab@iab.org, rgchairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rgchairs@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF research group chairs list <rgchairs.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs>, <mailto:rgchairs-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/rgchairs>
List-Post: <mailto:rgchairs@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rgchairs-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs>, <mailto:rgchairs-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rgchairs-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rgchairs-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d

At 07:37 AM 2/11/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:


>--On 1. november 2004 15:02 -0500 John R Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>
>>>What path could be clearer than "write a good internet-draft, get RG
>>>consensus on it, and ask the RFC Editor to publish it"?
>>
>>That seems pretty clear.  Once we do that, is it an irtf draft or an
>>independent submission?  I've gotten conflicting messages recently.
>
>IRTF drafts are treated like independent submissions - there are no 
>special processing rules for them. Do we need any?

I would assert that we do. This is a replay of the same old conversation 
about publication of individual submissions, so I will not repeat all the 
content, but I believe that the IRTF is far better served by a defined 
publication process that does not simply say 'these are individual submissions'

Geoff





_______________________________________________
Rgchairs mailing list
Rgchairs@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs