Re: Uneccesary slowness.

[Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>]

> Well, there are always going to be judgement calls about whether something
> is or isn't an end-run, which is where I would expect "discuss"
> positions to come from on such documents.

Process-wise, this isn't right, IMO (which is where I suspect John is
coming from). Process-wise, the thing to do is respond to the RFC
editor with one of response 4 or 5 in Section 3 of RFC 3932 (e.g.,
potential end run, this needs to be reviewed by the IETF', to make it
clear exactly what state the document is.

The decision of whether something is an "end run" should be relatively
fast. One can always air on the conservative side if in doubt and say
"looks like end run", while getting more detailed reviews.

Clearly, getting the reviews and resolving issues stemming from such
reviews can take time. But we should be able to pretty quickly decide
which pile a document falls into.

Thomas

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