A general opinion:
I am incline towards looking for ways reduce the workload of the RFC
editors and if possible the IESG. The size of the IETF these days does
not allows us to function in the "old ways" without substainable support.
As such, I believe a review of RFC 1543 may be useful. I mean, most
people only see I-Ds and RFCs and have largely ignore the other STDs and
BCPs.
Maybe we just have too many classification under RFC series and perhaps
we should consider having something between I-D and RFC for
Informational and Experimental doc. Such class may be published with
little review from IESG and less work on RFC Editors (so long the std
templates and copyrights are in place)
-James Seng
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 28. mars 2004 01:35 +0800 James Seng <jseng(_at_)pobox(_dot_)org(_dot_)sg>
wrote:
Few questions:
Thanks, James!
1. Section 4 say that "For documents that are independent of the IETF
process: This document is not a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard."
Does this means that an individual submission can only be Informational
only? ie. not even experimental? If so, how does this fit into what
happened in IMAA BoF in Seoul?
Experimental documents are not (in themselves) candidates for any level
of Internet Standard. Revisions of the ideas therein may be - and the
same thing can happen to Informationals. This needs to be clearer.....
(The conclusion is no working group, but wrap up and docs some of the
implementations as possibly experimental RFCs via individual submissions)
2. Section 3 talks about the various IESG responses. Most of it makes
sense but the last one: "The IESG thinks that this document extends an
IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review, and should therefore
not be published without IETF review."
It wasn't very clear when will the above apply.
It wasn't very clear to me either when I wrote it.
Beside, wasn't individual submission already (maybe) subjected to 4 weeks
last call? Does this qualify as 'IETF review'?
No - the Last Call is only done for standards-track and BCP, not for the
Info and Experimental sent in via the RFC Editor. (sometimes we've done
it in the past, but it's unlikely to happen under this procedure.)
and yes, a 4-week Last Call + the procedure that led an AD to conclude
that it was ready for last call *does* qualify as "IETF review"!