Re: draft-klensin-stds-review-panel-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Monday, August 01, 2005 09:24 +0300 Pekka Savola 
> <pekkas at netcore.fi> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > I think this looks, at the high level, a potentially workable
> > method in that
> > it reduces the AD load and creates a separation of management
> > and review.
>
>
> thanks
>
> > I note that the document does not discuss at all (except that
> > the panel doesn't deal with them) the AD-sponsored
> > Info/Experimental documents which are NOT submitted in
> > conjunction with a standards track documents. What would the
> > path for these?
>
>
> Obviously, if the community had an opinion on them, the draft could (and 
> would) be changed.   But my reasoning and assumption was that, today, we 
> have...
>
>   standards track doc  ---> IESG
>   info/experimental --> IESG
>                     |---> RFC Editor
>
> This draft changes _only_ that first line.  The IESG can still authorize 
> publication of WG-produced, or other IETF-relevant, docs as 
> informational or experimental, or authors can take such documents to the 
> RFC editor (subject to IESG review as specified in RFC 3932).

Factoid: about 65% of documents considered recently by the IESG are
standards/BCP track. It's very hard to determine what fraction of
the IESG's time goes on these documents, but there are some indications
that the remaining 35% take a disproportionate amount of time.

Documents sometimes move between standards and info/exptl during
IESG review, so if we want to keep that flexibility, this has to
be covered by the process.

In general, I would like to see an updated version of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/state_diagram.gif
with annotations showing where the IESG would induce a transition
and where the review panel would do so.

   Brian


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