Let me (repeat) state that my opinion is that we SHOULD be able to achieve RFC-publication within 2 months (or less) after IESG approval. And if we can achieve that, then I maintain that early stable references is farr less of a problem (if at all).
Just my personal opinion of course. I would rather work on trying to get to a fast-publication-after-approval than thinking of stop-ga[p measures to deal with too-slow-publication. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 19:15 > To: Allison Mankin > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Techspec] New requirement for early permanent ID > allocation > > > At 8:46 PM -0800 2/22/06, Allison Mankin wrote: > >The total RFCs published in this time (my count, may not be perfect) > >was about 130, so the Expedited documents were about 10%. > > Wow. And yuck. > > >"Quick highest priority publication" is what we're doing now, but > >it's pretty painful. > > That's unfortunate. OK, so back to early permanent ID allocation with > a lot of rules about what the identifier means and how the publisher > should handle it. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
