. *> > *> *> > *> > 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
We would welcome that cooperation. *> 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. So, I am confused. "Yes, exactly, that's the problem." The RFC Editor receives an independent submission, and a quick read makes us suspect a conflict. We send a message to an (overworked!) AD, asking for a quick opinion, but we hear nothing. All sugestions to make this work better are welcome. Bob Braden *> *> Jari *> *> *> _______________________________________________ *> INDEPENDENT mailing list *> [email protected] *> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent *> _______________________________________________ INDEPENDENT mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
