Only issue I would raise here is don't expire the ID if this situation arises...
If there is an IESG action and an ID folk can read that is going to work for
Don't publish the rfc before the appeals counter expires, there lies all sorts
of bad stuff and confusion.
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 05:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: Alexey Melnikov; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: iab(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?
The latter. If the Auth48 completes before the 60 day appeal timer
has expired, then the RFC Editor will hold off on publication until
the 60 days have gone by.
P.S. A document that I wrote was the first document to get snagged in
this situation. I guess it is only fair.... It got published yesterday.
At 06:54 PM 12/1/2007, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
IETF Chair wrote:
While we figure out what policy we want, I have asked the RFC Editor to
not publish any IESG approved documents until their appeal timer has
expired. I also challenged the RFC Editor to move things along so fast
that this matters. I suspect they can. Which means that the whole IETF
community needs to help the leadership figure out the appropriate policy
before the rapid processing of Internet-Draft documents into RFCs becomes
I would like to ask a clarifying question: does this mean that RFC
editors are not going to start editing the document until after 2
months since approval of a document, or does it mean that RFC
editors start editing right away, can issue AUTH48 request, but will
delay publication until after 2 months?
I think the latter is better, because (a) appeals are not that
frequent and (b) AUTH48 usually takes way longer than 2 days ;-).
P.S. I apologize in advance for asking the question before reading
the whole thread. Maybe it was already asked.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list