Re: RFC 2026 interpretation question

From: sob at harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner)
To: braden at ISI.EDU, john-ietf at jck.com, lisa at osafoundation.org, sob at harvard.edu
Cc: presnick at qualcomm.com, tony at att.com, ietf at ietf.org
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:03:36 -0400 (EDT)
In-reply-to: <8AC2E9C4254D48AC972A4797 at p3.int.jck.com>

>  Worse, it is possible to read the current text of 2026 as
> requiring, especially in the absence of an ISOC newsletter, that
> a version of STD1 be published as an RFC before the clock starts
> running on the waiting period.  I think that would violate
> common sense, especially given the interpretation of the second
> paragraph of RFC 2026 Section 6.2.4 as requiring a sixty-day
> waiting period between IESG action and RFC publication.   I
> think that interpretation is clearly against the intent of 2026,

as does the editor of 2026

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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC 2026 interpretation question
  - From: TS Glassey

References:
- Re: RFC 2026 interpretation question
  - From: John C Klensin

Prev by Date: Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05
Next by Date: Re: Secdir Review of draft-stjohns-sipso-05
Previous by thread: Re: RFC 2026 interpretation question
Next by thread: Re: RFC 2026 interpretation question
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: RFC 2026 interpretation question

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.