Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

[Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

Tim Polk wrote:
> There is no way to ensure that documents aren't published until *all* the
> appeals timers expire.  Given that, let's encourage the RFC Editor to
> publish when ready, and we can concentrate on establishing a process that
> works when the appeal concerns a published document.


+1

RFCs are "withdrawn" for a variety of reasons, already.  A successful appeal 
would be merely one more.  While no, "historic" is not metemantically 
identical to nevering having been published, it is sufficient that it means 
"not approved by the IETF".  Approval-vs-nonApproval seems like the most 
pragmatic test of "reversal".

The IETF approval process already has significant points of review and 
control.  While this final-stage appeal potential is real, it does not happen 
with any frequency and the dangerous community impact of publishing an RFC 
that quickly gets moved to historic are small, possibly nil.

Hence, no new mechanisms are need, although I do think it was useful to raise 
the question for discussion in this thread.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

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