Brian E Carpenter wrote:
send publication request to secretariat is more attractive
than spamming ADs.
You probably need to understand what happens when someone
does that.
Yes, I haven't tested it yet.
The Secretariat simply forwards the note to the IESG.
Don't they also set the pubreq bit in the I-D tracker ?
After a while, the IESG Chair will (with luck) have handled
everything that looks urgent, and will take a glance at
draft-smith-my-new-idea and make an uninformed guess that it
fits the smurf Area.
Doesn't sound good, I thought it would hit a tracker exception
or something after a while (if nobody feels like looking at it).
The IESG Chair will send a note to one or both smurf ADs
saying Can you have a look at this?.
The Chair could appoint...
http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IesgWhips
...for stuff stuck in procedural corners. Getting the pubreq
flag is important, it won't go away unless the author gives up,
or it's transformed to do not publish / RFC published.
then the process proposed by draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines
actually starts - probably with another wait until one of
those ADs has handled everything that looks urgent.
But without the AD shopping mentioned in the draft, what I
called AD spamming: One of the two ADs has to do something
visible in the I-D tracker, like enter revised ID needed or
start a last call. Or note it as dead, or if that's allowed
maybe demote it to AD is watching - when the authors agree.
So far I thought that authors create this pubreq flag, for
individual I-Ds, or otherwise the WG Chairs representing some
consensus of their WG.
With the proposed procedure it's apparently the IESG creating
any pubreq flag, and you can block this important step in a
rather obscure (= invisible in the tracker) procedure, roughly
reflecting nobody feels like caring about the I-D.
Frank
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
