Comment: For some implementors only peripherally involved with IETF
standards and process but looking at the new RFCs as "news" on standards
it is well a difference whether its an RFC at the time they look or not.
They just wouldn't know about an informal status as "being approved to
be released shortly".
However, I want to say that I find it excellent that the RFC Editors did
make their job so good that we actually have the chance to have this
"problem discussion".
Maybe a quite pragmatic approach:
Yes, RFC Editor should hold back until end of formal period for appeals,
but how about just shortening that period to about 45 days instead of
60?
Tobias
-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:41 PM
To: Tom.Petch; Lixia Zhang
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2
months?
--On 3. desember 2007 10:09 +0100 "Tom.Petch"
<sisyphus(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com>
wrote:
At the same time, I see the benefits of having the RFC now rather
than
in
February as minimal; early adopters adopt early and are proud to
announce
in their marketing material that their product conforms to I-D
draft-ietf-wg-enhanced-protocol. The date of the arrival of an RFC
is
irelevant to them.
The people who actually care about whether something is an I-D or an
RFC
are the people who write specifications (other bodies' standards,
RFPs,
government mandates.... wherever they need a stable identifier).
For the implementors, an I-D + the fact of approval is sufficient. For
those who write other documents, it's not - they need the RFC number.
Harald
_______________________________________________
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