Re: RFC Editor and IESG DNP requests

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

Aaron Falk <falk@ISI.EDU> writes:

> 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 Editor a "Do Not Publish" (DNP) note containing description of the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.

The above seems perfectly reasonable to me.

> 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.

This part I find problematical. It basically provides a process
loophole for getting something published anyway, even if it is bad for
the WG  effort. We'd be much better off simply reevaluating the
situation when the document is submitted again  and going from
there. I agree that the longer the delay, the more likely it becomes
time to say "ship". But I'm am opposed to what basically amoounts to a
process rule that says "can't say no anymore".

> 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.

Not entirely clear to me.  What does the above mean if the IESG says
"DNP - interferes with WG" twice?

Thomas