ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

2007-11-28 16:03:16
I can think of an example where a minor clarification was made in AUTH 48. The appropriate AD confirmed the change but it still proved to be very controversial. (For the life of me, I have *never* understood why. I have read that sentence a thousand times, and I still don't see the problem. Not that it matters here, of course.) I don't know if an appeal for AUTH 48 changes has ever been filed, but I could certainly see it happening.

There is no way to ensure that documents aren't published until *all* the appeals timers expire. Given that, let's encourage the RFC Editor to publish when ready, and we can concentrate on establishing a process that works
when the appeal concerns a published document.

Tim

On Nov 28, 2007, at 5:14 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:


What happens if the appeal is claiming that changes made in Auth 48 should have been reviewed by the working group and go against WG consensus? Given some of the changes I have seen between IESG approval and published RFC, this seems like a reasonable plausible scenario.


On Nov 28, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Russ Housley wrote:

John:

RFC 2026 gives two months to appeal any decision.  IESG approval of a
document publication is one such decision. RFC 2026, section 6.5.4 says:

    All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public
    knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.

So, the two month timer begins when the approval announcement is sent.

Russ

At 04:02 PM 11/28/2007, John C Klensin wrote:
>I don't see any possible reason why we need to give
>people two months to get an appeal filed: a month or, at most,
>six weeks ought to be more than sufficient.


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





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