RFC Editor and IESG DNP requests

[Aaron Falk <falk@ISI.EDU>]

ADs-

I had a chance to chat with the rest of the RFC Editor crew about the
issue of document authors taking drafts which were rejected by a
working group and sending them to us as individual submissions.  

We understand that the feeling in the IESG is that, in some cases,
this can be damaging to the working group process by removing the
social engineering tool of forcing wg participants to achieve
consensus in order to get a solution published.  We also understand
that there is a perception in the IESG that publishing individual
solutions before working groups complete can be damaging to the
Internet by confusing the marketplace (although we would really like
some evidence where this has occurred).

It was clear to me at the retreat that the IESG recognizes the value
of an independent RFC Editor and an archive of alternate, rejected,
and known bad solutions and would like to see these documents
published eventually.

So, with all that in mind, I want to clarify the RFC Editor's position
on the issue at hand.  The IESG may request that publication of an
individual submission may be delayed by six months by sending RFC
Editor a "Do Not Publish" (DNP) note containing description of the
risks posed by the document.  In other words, we would like to
understand the specifics of the request.

The author will receive a note including the IESG DNP message and an
explanation that the draft may be resubmitted in six months.  We feel
that a timed delay is important since some working groups do not
complete their work.  When the draft is re-submitted, the IESG may
request one additional six month delay if there is sufficient reason
to believe the working group will deliver it's output in that time.

Just to be clear: the RFC Editor *will* honor an IESG DNP request.  We
would like to understand the specifics and hope that these are rare
occurrences.  I'm happy to discuss this further if you have questions.

--aaron (for the RFC Editor)