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

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>]

Dave Crocker wrote:

> 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 RFCs are "withdrawn" for a variety of reasons, already.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.

Indeed, let's optimize for the common case.

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

+1.


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