Harald> It might have something to do with the fact that the WG has not
Harald> requested that the IESG process these drafts.... if the WG has not
Harald> come to consensus on asking for the drafts to be published, I'm
Harald> afraid the IESG cannot do anything.
I consider this answer to be rather disingenuous.
The WG has not requested that the IESG process these drafts because the WG
chairs have told the WG that the ADs have told them that the drafts in
question cannot be submitted to the IESG until numerous other drafts that no
one will ever read (requirements, framework, architecture) have been
approved by the IESG. Of course, most of those numerous other drafts were
completed about 18 months ago, though a few of them have now come out of the
seemingly endless "IESG reviews, WG makes minor change, IESG reviews, WG
change" cycle.
So you can't honestly answer Yakov by saying "the WG hasn't asked us to
process these drafts"; the answer to Yakov's question would be an
explanation of (a) why all these prior drafts are really necessary, (b) why
it is reasonable for such a long review cycle, and (c) why it is reasonable
to delay starting to process the protocol specs until the prior specs are
already on the RFC Editor's queue.