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

["Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Tobias Gondrom wrote:

> They just wouldn't know about an informal status as "being
> approved to be released shortly". 

That's a feature, "approved" isn't necessarily related to
"be released shortly", it can take years (or forever) to
resolve all normative references to not yet approved I-Ds.

> how about just shortening that period to about 45 days 
> instead of 60?

That's what John proposed (well, he said 42 days), but it
would be a huge effort to change the rules only for this
minimal effect.  Doing it together with something that's
worthwhile like Brian's deconstruction of RFC 2026 could
make sense.

 Frank


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