I don't think we should overdesign process here. But to be
clear, if a draft shows up at the RFC Editor named something
like draft-AUTHOR-WGNAME-foobar or draft-AUTHOR-PROTOCOLNAME-foobar
then a check on the IETF side before serious ISR review
really seems like common sense. And if experience shows
that private notes to the relevant AD get lost, then we should
use a common sense way of getting it on the IESG's radar.
For IANA, we've recently encouraged them to directly add items
to the IESG agenda when they need our attention. There's no
reason we can't do the same for the RFC Editor, without launching
a premature RFC 3932 review. This doesn't need rules, IMHO.
It's Management 101 stuff.
Brian
On 2007-01-24 21:57, Bob Braden wrote:
*>
*> One additional tuning suggestion. If we are going to move
*> toward posting a notice that a document has gone into RFC Editor
*> review as an independent submission somewhere, I think we should
*> allow the IESG to notify the RFC Editor that _they_ are
*> initiating that review as well. If they never take advantage of
*> it, nothing is lost. But, again in the interest of efficiency
*> and flexibility, if an AD happens to notice a document headed
*> down the "independent" path that seems problematic, in the
*> spirit of this exchange I don't see any reason to prevent the
*> IESG from initiating the review if they think that is
*> appropriate.
*>
*> john
*>
Not unreasonable, although the program begins to get rather obscure
with locks and signals! ;-)
The information that a given draft is in RFC Editor review as an
independent submission is of course always available in the RFC
Editor quueue, but I suppose there could be a display that shows
the time derivative of the queue.
Boib
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
