The LC review will be very weak in terms of quality if we often do this
kind of calls (it seems not often done), but I think if reviewers that want
to review these drafts, send comments saying we need more time for such LC,
there is always the AD responsibility to make more time available if there
were people to do the job. Delaying I-Ds also is not a good process quality
while we see no much volunteering reviews from the community (less than 5
reviews per I-D). So do you mean you will want to review or you mean that
others MAY want to review but they will leave it, so this LC is attacking.
AB
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:54 AM, t.p. <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com> wrote:
I see that we have been granted a fortnight to review eight,
inter-related, httpbis I-Ds, comprising over 300 pages, ending in the
course of IETF88 and in the run-up to a meeting when everyone comes out
of aestivation and the mailing lists are inundated.
Seems like a DoS attack to me.
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg(_at_)w3(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 2:25 PM
Subject: Last Call:
<draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08.txt>(Initial Hypertext
Transfer Protocol (HTTP) AuthenticationScheme Registrations) to
Informational RFC
The IESG has received a request from the Hypertext Transfer Protocol
Bis
WG (httpbis) to consider the following document:
- 'Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Authentication Scheme
Registrations'
<draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-08.txt> as
Informational
RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2013-11-04. Exceptionally,
comments may
be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document registers Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
authentication schemes which have been defined in standards-track
RFCs before the IANA HTTP Authentication Scheme Registry was
established.
Note that this document is part of a set, which should be reviewed
together:
* draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging
* draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics
* draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional
* draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range
* draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache
* draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth
* draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations
* draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrati
ons/<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations/>
Once IESG evaluation begins, IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrati
ons/ballot/<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations/ballot/>
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.