> > *> believe there is a high likelihood of conflicts or other interactions > *> with IETF efforts (including believing that the document is one that > *> the IESG should probably process), they may forward it to the IESG, > *> or relevant ADs, for preliminary evaluation and comment. > *> > > Comment: Nice theory, but in practice some IESG members have been > less than responsive to such requests from the RFC Editor. >
I would be willing to work with you on finding better ways to approach this. We generally respond on a timely manner (I think) on the requests that come to us for an official RFC 3932 decision. But given the two week review deadlines, events in the WGs, etc. I know I at least sometimes miss other mails and requests. I wonder if John's goal would be met by the RFC Editor deciding what order it runs the different steps in. For instance, if the RFC Editor suspects that a collision is very likely, sending the draft for RFC 3932 at that time would seem more useful than spend half a year in ISR process and only then finding out that, say, IANA rules prevent publication. Jari _______________________________________________ INDEPENDENT mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
