Re: Last Call: 'The IESG and RFC Editor documents: Procedures' to BCP

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>]

--On 10. mai 2004 09:33 -0400 Scott Bradner <sob at harvard.edu> wrote:

> this misses one of the outcomes listed in RFC 2026 - specifically (quoting
> from 2026):
> 	"the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the
> 	IETF and progressed within the IETF context"
>
> this path has been used from time to time and I think it is a valuable
> option - I'd suggest that it be added as a 6th response

actually it was more-or-less intentionally left out.
There are 3 scenarios to consider, I think:

- There is a valid reason why it's impossible to do this work outside of 
the IETF. Response 4 or 5 should be returned, explaining why.

- The work can be done in the IETF, and the author agrees. The author 
should (IMHO) be the one to inform the RFC Editor that he/she is dropping 
the request to publish outside IETF review.

- The work can be done in the IETF (or rather, this draft could be the 
basis for further work in the IETF), but the author wants it published 
independently anyway. In this case, I think it is good for the health of 
the RFC series AND for the time budget of the IESG that the IESG does NOT 
say "should be brought in" to the RFC Editor; the IESG, having failed to 
convince the author, should just live with the RFC Editor's judgment on 
publication.

My opinion only.....

                     Harald





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf