--On 10. mai 2004 09:33 -0400 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
this misses one of the outcomes listed in RFC 2026 - specifically (quoting from 2026): "the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the IETF and progressed within the IETF context"
this path has been used from time to time and I think it is a valuable option - I'd suggest that it be added as a 6th response
actually it was more-or-less intentionally left out. There are 3 scenarios to consider, I think:
- There is a valid reason why it's impossible to do this work outside of the IETF. Response 4 or 5 should be returned, explaining why.
- The work can be done in the IETF, and the author agrees. The author should (IMHO) be the one to inform the RFC Editor that he/she is dropping the request to publish outside IETF review.
- The work can be done in the IETF (or rather, this draft could be the basis for further work in the IETF), but the author wants it published independently anyway. In this case, I think it is good for the health of the RFC series AND for the time budget of the IESG that the IESG does NOT say "should be brought in" to the RFC Editor; the IESG, having failed to convince the author, should just live with the RFC Editor's judgment on publication.
My opinion only.....
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
