I didn't mean to imply the IESG is doing something wrong deliberately.
From personal experience, documents are approved by the IESG
that have unresolved IANA considerations.
From observation, documents are approved by the IESG that have
normative reference issues.
The next event is some months later, when the RFC editor picks
up the document, and authors are notified of the issues. Are
you suggesting that in all, or even most of the cases, authors
are unaware of these issues before the RFC was approved by the IESG?
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 7:18 PM
To: Rosen, Brian
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: rfc publication suggestions
What happens now is silliness due to
the known queue length - we put things in we know are deficient,
always assuming we will have the issues resolved before it
wends it's
way through the queue.
Where in the world do you get that idea? I spent four years on IESG
and I can't recall a single instance of this happening.
Seems like what we have now is a lot of uninformed speculation.
Keith