--On 10. mai 2004 09:33 -0400 Scott Bradner <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu> wrote:
this misses one of the outcomes listed in RFC 2026 - specifically (quoting
from 2026):
"the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the
IETF and progressed within the IETF context"
this path has been used from time to time and I think it is a valuable
option - I'd suggest that it be added as a 6th response
actually it was more-or-less intentionally left out.
There are 3 scenarios to consider, I think:
- There is a valid reason why it's impossible to do this work outside of
the IETF. Response 4 or 5 should be returned, explaining why.
- The work can be done in the IETF, and the author agrees. The author
should (IMHO) be the one to inform the RFC Editor that he/she is dropping
the request to publish outside IETF review.
- The work can be done in the IETF (or rather, this draft could be the
basis for further work in the IETF), but the author wants it published
independently anyway. In this case, I think it is good for the health of
the RFC series AND for the time budget of the IESG that the IESG does NOT
say "should be brought in" to the RFC Editor; the IESG, having failed to
convince the author, should just live with the RFC Editor's judgment on
publication.
My opinion only.....
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf