John C Klensin wrote:
...
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.
Well, there are always going to be judgement calls about whether something
is or isn't an end-run, which is where I would expect "discuss"
positions to come from on such documents. It's also a fact that
with o(15) drafts on the IESG agenda every two weeks, respecting the
four week cycle can be tough if the draft in question is of any
length and complexity. All I can say is the IESG is supposed to
follow 3932 and is very much aware of that.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf