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The IESG may request that publication of an individual submission may be delayed by six months by sending RFC Editor a "Do Not Publish" (DNP) note containing description of the risks posed by the document.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)