Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:34:14 -0800
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
| Only issue I would raise here is don't expire the ID if this situation
That did not really need to be said - once submitted for IESG action,
I-Ds go into a limbo state where they hand around until something happens,
either the IESG rejects them, or the RFC is published, during that interval
(however long it is, and it has been many years in a few extreme cases)
the I-D simply remains available for reference.
That, and that the RFC editor allocates the RFC number as one if its
first actions after receiving approval to publish (I believe) has led
me to read this entire discussion with something bordering on incredulity.
Everyone (almost everyone) seems to be assuming that getting the RFC
published as quickly as possible is the aim. Why? What does actual
appearance of the file in the directories really change? Sure, it makes
access a little easier, but that's it (and I guess that now, we could have
a temporary placeholder installed, a file called rfcNNNN.2b or something,
containing the URL of the I-D that will become the RFC when the editing
process is finished - I personally doubt it is necessary, but it could be
Certainly having the RFC editor reduce the publication delays is a laudable
goal, if it RFCs are getting published at a rate slower than the IETF is
producing them (over a lengthy period), then we'd have a problem - but if
the RFC editor can publish faster than the IETF can produce, then the editor
simply has to stall - whether that occurs at the point where everything that
has been produced by the IETF is published, or when nothing produced by the
IETF is greater than 2 months old really makes no difference at all.
Where we want to avoid delays is in everything that happens before the RFC
is approved for publication - once that happens its text is (minor editing
aside) known, its citation is known, everything that matters is known,
and how long the final step takes isn't that important.
| Don't publish the rfc before the appeals counter expires, there lies all
| sorts of bad stuff and confusion.
I agree. Certainly if there is an appeal then until the appeal is
resolved, or it is ascertained that the result of the appeal won't
affect what is published (the fact, or the content) then publication
needs to be stalled. Waiting the prescribed period for appeals (however
long that is, which is a different discussion entirely) before publication
doesn't hurt anything, and avoids all kinds of changes being needed to how
the RFC archives are maintained.
What's more, doing this requires no changes to anything at all - we just
ask the RFC editor not to get "too" efficient - to use common sense and
not publish anything within the appeals window (however long that is
updated as it changes) and everything will be happy.
What's more, given that essentially no RFCs have ever been (before now)
ready to publish that quick anyway, this isn't going to seem any different
to what we have had (ever since appeals have existed anyway) - everything
will just continue as it always has, and would have, without complaint,
had this issue not been raised.
Ietf mailing list