--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.
not the case I'm speaking of - I'm speaking of new work that the IESG
feels would be a good new IETF topic or that it fits within the charter of
an existing WG (and maybe the author did not know that) and the IESG feels
that it would be good to have the WG work on the document.
- 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.
but that seems to drop a ball - the RFC Editor asks the IESG a question
imo the IESG should answer - maybe just say 'we are talking with the
author about doing this work in the IETF' but at least say something
to close the loop
I also think that just leaving out these possibilities makes this
document an incomplete picture of the processing that goes on
and I fail to see a reason to not mention that bringing the work into
the IETF is an option (even if you think the author should tell the
RFC Editor that is being done)
- 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.
agree (and 2026 specifically calls this case out)
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf