in general that seems OK though I'd like to see "including the possibility
of the author pursuing the work within the IETF" added
----
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue May 11 12:18:30 2004
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:18:20 -0400
From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'The IESG and RFC Editor documents:
Procedures' to BCP
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.3 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Scott, Harald,
It seems to me that this problem/ disagreement could be easily
solved while preserving the (IMO, valid) points both of you are
making, by including a sentence somewhere to the effect of...
Of course, the IESG or individual ADs may have
discussions with the author during this period about
other possible ways to handle the document. Should that
discussion result in a voluntary action by the author to
drop the request to the RFC Editor to publist, the
document moves immediately outside the scope of this
specification.
Now, that may not be the right phrasing in context, and can
certainly be improved. But I think it covers the full range of
from "we really think this should be standardized, why not let
us process it that way" to "if you insist on publishing that
thing, I'm going to break both of your legs". The question of
whether those actions are appropriate is a separate issue, but
the IESG has never been able to insist on either standardization
or withdrawal. And, as far as I know, both actions are
identical as far as the RFC Editor is concerned: the document is
spontaneously withdrawn as an individual submission.
john
--On Tuesday, May 11, 2004 9:57 AM -0400 Scott Bradner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Anything else should (IMHO) be advice to the RFC Editor and
>> the author, and not be part of the formal position-taking
>> the IESG makes.
>
> we may be debating termonology
>
> your ID says "The IESG may return five different responses"
>
> that seems to eliminate the possibility of communicating any
> such advice
>
>> Because in the past, we've seriously bogged down independent
>> publications because we were debating (with or without the
>> author) whether or not they should be IETF work.
>> And we need to stop doing that.
>
> beware of tossing too much away just to "stop doing that"
>
> I still fail to see why this document cannot say that one of
> the outcomes could be that the author could agree with the
> IESG to bring the work into the IETF - it seems a bit
> dogmatic to refuse to say that (and counter to the intent of
> 2026)
>
> Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
