> > At 5:18 PM -0600 2/22/06, Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote: > >Early permanent ID allocation is not something currently done in the > >IETF. Although there is already a potential requirement to do this, > >implementing it will imply yet another new potential requirement on > >the technical publisher. > > Given the complexity you describe, and the rareness of the need, > might it not be better to change the requirement to "quick > highest-priority publication"? The permanent identifier comes with > that for free, of course. As long as this only comes up a few times a > year (and I think that is more than has been seen to date), the IESG > could tell the technical publisher to stick a particular document at > the top of the editing queue.
I'm not sure this is a rare need. Perhaps somebody can provide statistics on how often the expedited handling is requested. Buch each time it is granted it is unfair to the other documents waiting in the queue. Ideally, I would like to see early allocation of identifiers be the norm as opposed to the exception. This relieves some of the pressure in case a publication backlog develops. > > The outside organizations that "need" the identifier will get it more > slowly than "just make one up", but they would get the full document. > Further, there would be no confusion about what the contents that the > identifier point to. Given that the definitive reference for the RFC (I am assuming that a RFC number will continue to be the reference) is determined by the index, I am unsure of what confusion will arise. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
