Thomas Narten wrote:
Also, because of the two month timeout in the RFC 2026 appeal
process, it turns out that our standards process actually implies
that an RFC MUST NOT be published until two months after approval.
I don't see that that follows - we can always declare the mis-published RFC
Historical and publish a fixed one later, as we did with (for instance) the
RFCs for RADIUS that came out with the wrong port numbers in them, or the
SNMPv3 RFCs that turned out to have the wrong encrypted-values in the
examples.
I strongly concur. Our processes should (by default) be forward
looking. We should not be adding extra (and harmful) delay to our
processes in order to facilitate appeals, or those that would raise
them. Let's not have the cost outweigh the benefit!
I can buy this argument, but note that it is at least a clarification
if not an actual update to RFC 2026. And the notion of a withdrawn RFC
is new. So we have to be very clear about that.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
