Hi Robin,
By my read of RFC5743 IRTF publication procedures, there is an
IRSG review and if that goes OK we get to add IRTF boilerplate
saying that this was a product of the RRG and that:
1) "this document represents the consensus of the FOOBAR RG", or
2) "the views in this document were considered controversial by
the FOOBAR RG but the RG reached a consensus that the document
should still be published".
I suspect that for IRON (or for any RRG proposal for that matter)
we would need to add boilerplate 2) above.
After the IRSG review, the document is submitted to the IESG
to check for conflicts and then the document goes to the RFC
editor. By my read, these latter steps are identical to those
used in the RFC5472 independent submission process however the
review would take place within the IRTF working group if we go
the RFC5743 route whereas the review would be via an expert
reviewer who reports directly to the RFC Editor (actually the
ISE Editor, I guess) if we go the RFC5742 route.
RFC 5743 also says the following:
"Following resolution of the editorial review, the IRSG will make a
decision as to whether to approve the document for publication. If
the IRSG does not approve the document, it returns to the research
group with feedback on what would need to be fixed for publication.
In rare cases, the IRSG may determine that a document is not suitable
for publication as an IRTF RFC. (For example, members of the RG may
assert to the IRSG that there was no RG consensus to publish the
document.) Other publication streams would still be available to
those authors."
I take the "Other publication streams would still be available"
as an indication that the RFC5742 route can still be pursued
if the IRSG says "no" for some reason.
So, what does all this tell us? The upside of going with RFC5743
is that we would get to add some substantiating boilerplate if
the IRSG says yes. If they say no, however, we can still proceed
with the RFC5742 process albeit without supporting IRTF boilerplate.
So, why not go forward with the RFC5743 approach now? If I understand
correctly, individuals can still comment on the document even as it
progresses through the publication process so unless I am wrong I
don't see a problem if you are not able to comment immediately. We
also have an example playing out in the autoconf list at the current
time where substantial comments were received after the last call
deadline and decision to publish, so I don't think your comments
would be rejected. Finally, once published a document can always
be recycled via a (bis) procedure. In fact, we will want to do that
anyway in order to bring IRON onto standards track soon after the
initial publication.
So, the only downside I see with going with RFC5743 is if we would
have some avenue to go straight to standards track on the first
iteration. I think at one time it was possible to take an
independent submission to standards track via "AD sponsorship", so
if that is still true we could get some IESG AD to stand up and
sponsor the document we could ask them to pursue Proposed Standard
right away. But, I don't have a good sense of how much trouble this
would be. Does anyone know?
WG chairs - please let me know if I have mis-spoken in any
way.
Robin - please let me know if you are OK with proceeding
now according to RFC5743.
Thanks - Fred
[email protected]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Whittle [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:28 PM
> To: Tony Li
> Cc: Templin, Fred L; RRG
> Subject: Re: [rrg] Pumping IRON
>
> Hi Tony and Fred,
>
> I don't clearly understand the various paths Fred could take with
> IRON. I can't read and comment on the latest draft in the next two
> weeks.
>
> I would prefer a more relaxed pace with there being no absolute
> deadline for finalising the document. My experience is that reading
> and substantial comments take several weeks and lead to several weeks
> of Fred doing further work of a fundamental nature. The resulting
> draft has significant improvments - which then require a re-reading
> of the whole document and so to and further substantial comments.
>
> - Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
