Re: we are being UGLY!!!! - Re: FYI: draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis to agenda

[Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>]

  *> 
  *> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
  *> cc: iesg@ietf.org
  *> Subject: Re: FYI: draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis to agenda 
  *> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 07:57:44 -0400
  *> From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
  *> 
  *> > The RFC Editor has decided that they want to publish 
  *> > draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis as Informational, rather than BCP.
  *> 
  *> Reasons? Just too hard to get community consensus? Unwillingness to do
  *> so? I'm very much wondering whether/if there is a message being sent
  *> here.

Thomas,

During the Last Call process we got many good comments, and we
modified the text, extensively in places, to meet the problems that
were raised.  Now it's (past) time to get on with it.

There is a balance here.  The IETF community should, and did, provide
consensus on general policy issues.  We believe that the RFC Editor is
(still) primarily responsible for setting fine-grained editorial
standards and policies for RFC publication.

  *> 
  *> I'm also wondering where it leaves the situation with authors who had
  *> comments, but do not necessarily feel like they were addressed
  *> sufficiently. (I don't have direct knowledge of folks opinions here
  *> other than to note that some substantial comments got sent in,e.g.,
  *> from Klensin, and Bert's comments relayed from Mike Heard.

The modified text has been republished twice, as announced at the IETF
plenary.  We have had no feedback; if people have further problems,
they will presumably raise them, and we will of course address them.

RFC 2223bis will NEVER be finished, but we DO need to take a checkpoint.

RFC Editor


  *> 
  *> Thomas
  *> 
  *> ------------- End Forwarded Message -------------
  *> 
  *>