ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: IESG review of RFC Editor documents

2004-03-27 08:28:35
Sometimes, if a half-baked idea is put on a back burner for a while it
might become palatable or at least partly usable.

Marge
 
Effort does not necessarily lead to progress.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On 
Behalf Of Kurt
D. Zeilenga
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:09 PM
To: Keith Moore
Cc: John C Klensin; Keith Moore; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: IESG review of RFC Editor documents


At 04:41 PM 3/26/2004, Keith Moore wrote:
What I have a problem with is individuals demanding the right to have 
their half-baked specifications published as RFCs, and for the RFC 
Editor to publish those documents as RFCs without public review, or (as

has happened in the past) even when substantial oversights or design 
flaws in those specifications have been pointed out to the RFC Editor.

Personally, I'm more concerned by WGs demanding their right to have
their half-baked specifications published as RFCs, and the for IESG to
approve them without any IETF review or other community review, or (as
has happened in the past) even when substantial oversights or design
flaws in those specifications were pointed out by individuals.

Kurt 


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 3/24/2004
 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 3/24/2004
 




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>