Reviewing ancient independent submissions

[Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>]

To the IESG:

Since the beginning of 2002, the RFC Editor has been reviewing new
individual submissions before sending them to the IESG.  We try to
forward only documents that are more-or-less in publishable form and
that we think should be publishable, assuming no conflicts with the
standards process and no overwhelming technical issues raised by the
IESG.  In other words, we are trying to avoid wasting the IESG's time.

However, there are about 10 documents awaiting IESG action that were
submitted to the IESG before this prior-review was begun.  We decided
it would be useful to subject these earlier documents to review using
our current criteria, and to work with the authors to bring these
documents up to an acceptable level for publication when appropriate.
This message summarizes our results so far.

We will be sending detailed messages to each author with our comments.
Should we CC:  these messages to the IESG, or should we only CC: the
relevant ADs?  There is also a process question of whether, when we ask
the author to revise, we should remove the document from the queue
(and hence from the IESG plate), and resubmit it to the IESG when our
concerns have been addressed.  Perhaps we need to discuss this with the
relevant ADs on a case/case basis.

In two cases, our review revealed that the document should have been
rejected by the RFC Editor, and we intend to do so.  We don't think
the IESG will mind ;-).

_____________________________________________________________

draft-tiwari-appl-wxxx-forms-01.txt
	"application/w-xxx-forms Media Type"
	Submitted 7/18/01
	Signficant rewrite needed
	(We also have some doubts about the usefulness of this RFC, but
	not sufficient to reject it.)

draft-wildgrube-gnp-03.txt
	"General Network Protocol (GNP)"
	Submitted 9/24/01
	Should be rejected; RFC ED message drafted.

draft-jl-pcdp-01.txt
	"Propagated Content Delivery Protocol"
	Submitted 2/13/01
	Should be rejected; RFC ED message drafted.

draft-heinanen-inarp-uni-01.txt
	"Inverse ARP over Unidirectional Virtual Circuits"
	Submitted 10/31/01
	We think this one should be published.  There were no
	editorial issues.

draft-eastlake-proto-doc-pov-04.txt
	"Protocol versus Document Viewpoints"
	Submitted 9/24/01
	Author revise: Very interesing document; work with author on
	editorial issues, then publish.

draft-new-apex-server-02.txt
	"APEX Endpoint Servers"
	Submitted 10/9/01
	Author revise: minor editorial issues
	
draft-malis-sonet-ces-mpls-05.txt
	"SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation Service over MPLS (CEM) Encapsulation"
	Submitted 11/20/01
	Authors revise: editorial problems and too many authors

draft-agrawal-sip-h323-interworking-req-02.txt
	"SIP-H.323 Interworking Requirements"
	Submitted 10/22/01  AD Mankin
	This has LOTS of editorial issues (poorly written).  It could
	be fixed, but we recommend radical surgery (see next doc)
	Also too many authors.

draft-agrawal-sip-h323-interworking-01.txt
	"SIP-H.323 Interworking"
	Submitted 10/22/01  AD Mankin
	It is unclear to us whether this has been submitted, but the AD
	indicated we should review it.  It is 120 pages long, but in fact
	it is quite well written.  We recommend that the introductory
	sections and Appendix of this document be retrofitted (moved
	or copied) into the Requirements document above.
	Also too many authors.


__________________________________
The RFC Editor