Re: [tcpm] IANA TCP options registry ...

William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com> Thu, 01 April 2010 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F1C3A69BA for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.856
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.856 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.613, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wICo7n3yf2kM for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2F7B3A683A for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwi10 with SMTP id 10so1358171pwi.31 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kokO9ka0P2W/nhH8E2zH+qq0rxsa3JP5QrnkF1t32Gw=; b=lfhoS6Ua+mkYjaNFLI9L24PtY1f5OX0SsdlfeY2K4IHTCvmGCpvjmVsJsOUVLMZa+K dKOlVArfQCqQ5Ps+2BH1sPrtBV5Tey8YZZu7NHa8gpBXcAsRgKXfy3iWUtm+Ii0jdgIs zH85hg1DvZU2NONCavgKO3Nxvzsp8VBr6Y/D0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Z8JfgRmEQl2ks0gjcGZLbYmaOsJzeNPlLTXnL3em2sVdxIaBEVuprV5a2XAarAq6IU NnMCBaXKSzJLD5ExBiWNXkGnHAc2dI+odmmeqYZwRWJnt28trANAqQpCSMNSuc6Atx2K NUQgZ9602aVPVtZ7vvhvlVzAKpvAd4NeLQmQM=
Received: by 10.142.196.17 with SMTP id t17mr494330wff.280.1270150530956; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Wastrel.local (c-68-40-195-221.hsd1.mi.comcast.net [68.40.195.221]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 20sm257481iwn.1.2010.04.01.12.35.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BB4F57A.3020400@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:35:22 -0400
From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20100401172358.GC13630@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100401172358.GC13630@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: TCP Modifications WG <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] IANA TCP options registry ...
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:35:03 -0000

On 4/1/10 1:23 PM, RFC Editor wrote:
> Unfortunately, we did not recognize the mail received on 1 March as a
> request to consider<draft-simpson-tcpct-00.txt>  for publication as
> an Independent Submission, as we did not see a particular request for
> for the RFC Editor.  Once clarified, the document was processed as
> described in RFC 4846.
>
Pardon my unclear language in my first sentence of March 1st:

# "this is a formal request for approval and publication."


>> From: William Allen Simpson<william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
>> The RFC Editor was notified on March 1st, long before Anaheim.
>>
>> The RFC 2026 process says the RFC Editor has two weeks to consult IESG.
>> Yet, it took 3 weekly reminders before the ISE notification was even
>> sent to the IESG!
>>
>> AFAICT, this is not Neville's fault.  The RFC Editor processing queue isn't
>> working as externally documented.
>>
My message of March 15th yielded more prompt results:

# It has been 14 days.  RFC 2026 section 4.2.3:
#
#    "...  The RFC Editor will wait two weeks after this
#    publication for comments before proceeding further. ..."
#
# I have nroff ready.  Do you want it now?
#