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

Re: FYI: draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis to agenda



--On 9. september 2003 07:57 -0400 Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> wrote:

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.

IESG slowness in processing (mine)?
I know that part of the pushback was that RFC Editor docs shouldn't describe policy, and that some of the revision was supposed to help that. Joyce - does the RFC Editor wish to explain its reasoning?

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.

Good question.