Re: FWD: RFC Editor: Fast Tracking Request

[Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>]

At Tue, 06 May 2003 18:34:20 -0700, Allison Mankin wrote:
> 
> > Should the IAB have been CCed on this?
> 
> I'm guessing you are asking this because of 3GPP and the IAB not having
> knowledge of the liaison dealings that led to large numbers of fast
> track requests for 3GPP a year ago.  I had to think for a bit.

Yes and no.  Yes, that's the particular instance that caused "fast
track RFC number" to raise a flag for me, but no, I'm not trying to
bring up that instance again, we already discussed that and reached
something like closure.

> This is not part of a similar connection - it is a stand-alone request,
> just what you see - it's well-formed.  The two drafts they wish to cite are
> Draft Standards and we really would prefer them to be cited rather than have
> the old PS's cited or the i-d names.

Useful information.

> Perhaps we should cc IAB on these in general.

That's what I was suggesting.  I have a vague recollection that we
sort of agreed to that in the discussions that followed the 3GPP stuff
last year, but as a more general observation it's probably appropriate
to keep the IAB up to date on interactions with the RFC Editor that
are based on requests from an external liaison, since the IAB is at
least nominally responsible both for liaison relationships and for the
IETF's relationship with the RFC Editor.