RE: RFC Editor: Fast Tracking Request

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Allison answers me:
> > Allison... are you aware that in the case of the ASON specs
> > in early Jan, that ITU SG15 in fact accepted that we would
> > point them to an approved I-D? It was not easy for them,
> > but they did accept it and live with it when we told them
> > that we would not give out rfc-numbers.
> >
> > Just so you know.
> 
> Bert,
> 
> I didn't know/recall that.  Did you consider asking for 
> expedited publication of the approved I-D?  
> 
I did consider... but then.. things had been dragging so long already.
In fact, I had been asking/warning RFC-Editor for months that we 
needed some RFC numbers by mid Jan. RFC-Editor thought it would not
be a problem. Then in the end, some snags hit us and we did not make
it.

So, although ITU SG15 REALLY preferred to have the RFC-numbers, 
they went along with not having them (they were going to publish them
while they did not yet exist, exactly what RFC-Editnot like). Instead
they used a process to later update their docs that they were balloting
(consenting is their term I believe).

So... I am not sure that the SG you are dealing with is willing to do
the same... but some extra pushback may make them decide to find a
solution on their side.

> If the IESG would prefer for us to advise the RFC-Editor we 
> do not want them to assign fast track numbers, I will accept
> this for consistency.  Alternatively, perhaps we can ask for
> expedited publication of the two drafts to minimize the
> exposure of the numbers.
> 
That latter approach seems better to me.

I am not trying to stand in the way. I am just informing about what
happened with the GMPLS RFCs, cause it may be of help.

Bert
> Allison
> 
> 
>