Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:04:38 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Message-ID: <47546156(_dot_)3070304(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
| It's the instant of formal publication, and that changes at least
| two things:
|
| 1. It allows other SDOs that require a normative citation to proceed
| with *their* publication process, in order to meet their own deadlines.
And do you really believe that some other SDO wants to proceed with their
own activities, only to be told a few weeks later that the RFC has been
wathdrawn after a successful appeal? Don't you expect that they're really
after some kind of stability? If they really need the actual RFC, don't
you think that is because they want the stability that gives - and in that
case, shouldn't we be making sure that RFC publication actualy means what
it has meant in the past - and not be just a temporary parking place until
an appeal (rarely, for sure, but possible) causes it to be removed?
For general citations, just having the data is enough. Don't you ever
cite papers (your own, or others) that you know are to be published in
some journal or proceedings, before he actual paper copy arrives on your
desk?
| 2. It triggers action by product developers and writers of RFPs,
| especially those not actively involved in the IETF.
Same as above. If you're issuing an RFP, wouldn't you look a bit
silly if you demanded conformance to an RFC that didn't actually exist
at the time the responses were due?
| The RFC Editor hates to reveal RFC numbers until publication is
| a certainty.
Yes, Joel Halpern, in a private message, also pointed that out - I wasn't
as clear as I should have been. What I meant (should have said) was that
at some point in the RFC process (now, past, and no necessary reason to
change this in the future - though it could be done) the RFC number is
allocated. That's certainly before AUTH48, as when the authors get their
copy to review, the RFC number is there. There's no reason any of that
should change, or be delayed - the RFC number will still be available
as soon as the RFC Editor is ready to make it available, and if that gets
closer and closer to the IESG's approval action, that's just fine. There
is a variable length delay (and potential termination) of the publication
process now, between number allocation and actual publication - the only
question is whether it makes sense for there to be some minimum delay to
make sure that appeals are no longer possible.
If the RFC Editor really wants to hold the number secret until the
actual publication is certain, then that means altering current practice,
as it is certainly possible for an RFC to be withdrawn during AUTH48.
What's more, even ignoring that, if publication is made as soon as possible,
the effect would be that occasionally (infrequently for sure) an RFC will
get published, only to be removed later after an appeal- and I'd think that's
something the RFC Editor would like even less than the occasional "this RFC
was never published" gap in the numbering scheme, because of an allocation
that ended up unused.
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf