[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFC Editor and IESG DNP requests





--On tirsdag, mai 06, 2003 15:39:13 -0700 Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com> wrote:

Aaron,
	I think I understand this well enough, but to clarify two things:

1) The author is told they may re-submit after six months, and it is up
to the author to decide to re-submit.  That is, this is not in any way
automatic or a default of the process, but requires the author
to take the initiative to do so.  If and when they resubmit, the
IESG can ask for a second (and last) six months delay.  This delay
timer starts on the receipt of the resubmission (which means that
the total delay may be over six + six months, if the author chooses
to delay resubmission).

2) The IESG retains the right to add a note describing its view
of the document.  This note may make references to specific documents
in process in working groups; the RFC Editor intends to treat all
such references as informative, so that publication may proceed
without waiting on the documents to complete.

	If that is a correct understanding, I am willing to go along,
but I don't think it is the best approach.
Aaron,

I agree with Ted's concerns.
Note that there may be cases where the "window of denial" is shorter than 6 months; I assume that this can be dealt with adequately.

Ted,

I think we retain the ability to say to a submitter "I think this would be a great item to work on in the SLC working group"; it would take the submitter's refusal to go work over there to get into the state where we have to ask him to wait for another 6 months.
I believe this is the case with both the documents we have to consider now - both the PWE3 guy and the V6OPS guy say that they want their document published individually even though the WG is working on related approaches.

Harald