It's not at all clear to me that we can afford the resources to give the
privilege of appeal to mere individuals.
Excuse me? What do you think IETF is or do you really prefer to see it
officially turn into IVTF?
IETF is, or should be, an engineering organization. Not a vanity press.
IETF exists to benefit the entire Internet community, rather than
authors wanting recognition or vendors wanting endorsement for their
products. It's more important for IETF to produce good engineering than
it is for anyone to be able to exhaust IETF's resources trying to get
his or her way.
Also it seems that not specifying how long review should take allows to
delay document indefinitely
That's a bit like saying that an SMTP server should not be able to
delay mail indefinitely no matter how much SPAM it gets.
It should not. If server is loaded with processing existing email, it
should not delay processing longer and longer internally but directly
start answering with 400 error. To turn this analogy (which I don't
think is very good in the first place) to publication process - RFC
editor can say that its overloaded and will not accept submissions
in the first place, but if it accepted submission - there should be
finite time in which it should be delayed within IESG review stage.
SMTP servers can bounce with 400 errors also.
There are a near-infinite number of simians with keyboards, while IETF
review resources are (and always will be) finite and precious. So no
matter who does the review for individual submissions, I think that
it's perfectly reasonable for that reviewer to be able to say "Sorry,
we receive too many invididual submissions to review them all, and yours
doesn't pass the smell test.
No smell tests please just because you're overworked and don't have time
for substantial review. Either all submissions are rejected due to load
or none.
Strongly disagree. When we reject a document we generally expect the
reviewer to supply good reasons for rejecting and to explain what would
make the document more deserving of publication. It's relatively easy
to competently sift potential wheat from chaff. It's much harder to do
full reviews where you explain what's wrong and how to fix it, and get
into iterative negotiation with the author.
RFC-Editor can report to ISOC and IETF if it begins to experience too
high a load with individual reviews and request additional funding or
input to improve its process to deal with this.
I believe flow control is needed at every point in the system.
However if I understand current situation, the individual publications requests directly to RFC
Editor have not been anything close to serious issue
if working with the Internet for 20 years has taught me anything, it's
that any hole that exists will someday be exploited, and soon after
that, will be exploited massively.
You may wish to seek publication through other channels". This is no
different than any other publisher. IETF is not a vanity press.
The question here is about RFC Editor and its process. Original function
of RFCs after all was to document internet protocols and how to use them
to allow others to know what each protocol is about from common easily
searchable source.
most things evolve over time, including RFCs and IETF. either that or
they become extinct.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf