Hi Ben, > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5742#section-3 seems pretty clear that the > IESG reviews the work that is being presented for publication on the > Independent Submission stream, which would seem to exclude extensive > consideration of what might be done later that builds upon such work. I'm > not sure which of the 5 "types of conclusion" from RFC 5742 you are > proposing should have been sent (and why)...
I understand that the rules are somewhat limiting the scope of consideration. Hmm, if I were to try to publish an independent submission that defines a YANG module for TLS implementations to make their ephemeral keys available over NETCONF, I’m sure I wouldn’t even get beyond the ISE, much less the IESG — you *would* consider "what might be done later that builds upon such work", and would choose 3 or 5. But I didn’t write this to criticize the IESG (and my objective is certainly not to make it harder to publish independent submissions; I think overall we got this about right at the moment), but more to lay out to JOSE the inevitable consequences to what’s ahead of us. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
