Re: Uneccesary slowness.

--On Monday, May 16, 2005 10:08 +0200 Brian E Carpenter 
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
> Bill, the thing that can create unbounded delay on RFC
> publication
> is a normative reference to work in progress. But apart from
> that,
> it's dangerous to generalize. For many years, the RFC Editor
> has
> only had complete discretion for non-IETF documents (for which
> there
> is now a 4 week timeout on the IESG review, see RFC 3932).
Brian,

Part of what I find troubling about these discussions is the 
disconnect between theory --or maybe "aspirations" would be a 
better term-- and practice.  Let's look at "complete discretion 
for non-IETF documents" as an example.   In the years between 
the publication of 2026 (or earlier) and that of 3932, the rules 
were that the IESG's review applied only to conflicts with IETF 
work, serious risks to the Internet, etc.   By agreement between 
the IESG and RFC Editor, that review was conducted against a two 
week timeout.  That timeout was extended to four weeks when it 
became clear that the IESG was _never_ meeting the schedule and 
kept needing to ask for extensions.  For many documents, the 
main consequence of the shift from a two-week timeout to a 
four-week timeout is that the IESG simply ignored the deadline 
rather than bothering to ask for extension.  And the RFC Editor, 
presumably out of professional courtesy and respect for the 
smooth functioning of the IETF, never (at least as far as I 
know) turned down an extension request or enforced a timeout 
(i.e., got tired of waiting for the IESG and just went ahead and 
published).
In theory, 3932 changed almost nothing.   The IESG asserted that 
it was not going to do what it had been barred from doing all 
along, which was holding up individual submissions ("non-IETF 
documents") until they were rewritten to match the tastes and 
preferences of any AD who cared.  The principle that quality 
control for those documents was an RFC Editor responsibility was 
clarified.    And the four-week timeout was formalized.
In practice, it changed even less.   Since 3932 was published, 
there have been at least severa instances of "discuss" positions 
in then IESG over substantive (not conflicts with IETF work) 
objections, and I'm aware of at least one or two over editorial 
matters.  The four-week cutoff is still ignored, apparently 
routinely, and the RFC Editor apparently does not consider it 
wise to take a "the IESG has not responded within four weeks, so 
they don't have an objection" position.
So, much as I remain optimistic that 3932 --which, IMO and given 
the language in 2026 never should have been necessary-- will 
eventually be taken seriously by all parties, the evidence is 
that hasn't happened yet.
   john


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf