Re: [INDEP] Re: comments on draft-klensin-independent-05.txt

[Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>]

.
  *> >   *> 
  *> >
  *> > Comment: Nice theory, but in practice some IESG members have been
  *> > less than responsive to such requests from the RFC Editor.
  *> >   
  *> 
  *> I would be willing to work with you on finding better

We would welcome that cooperation.

  *> ways to approach this. We generally respond on a timely
  *> manner (I think) on the requests that come to us
  *> for an official RFC 3932 decision. But given the two week
  *> review deadlines, events in the WGs, etc. I know I at
  *> least sometimes miss other mails and requests.
  *> 
  *> I wonder if John's goal would be met by the RFC Editor
  *> deciding what order it runs the different steps in. For
  *> instance, if the RFC Editor suspects that a collision
  *> is very likely, sending the draft for RFC 3932 at that
  *> time would seem more useful than spend half a year
  *> in ISR process and only then finding out that, say,
  *> IANA rules prevent publication.

So, I am confused.  "Yes, exactly, that's the problem."  The
RFC Editor receives an independent submission, and a quick
read makes us suspect a conflict.  We send a message to an
(overworked!) AD, asking for a quick opinion, but we hear nothing.

All sugestions to make this work better are welcome.

Bob Braden

  *> 
  *> Jari
  *> 
  *> 
  *> _______________________________________________
  *> INDEPENDENT mailing list
  *> INDEPENDENT at ietf.org
  *> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
  *> 

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