Reading these comments prompted me to realize that I don't
agree with John's characterization of the requirement.
I don't believe the intent was that the "verbatim" requirement
was for "fast tracking".
I believe the intent was to be able to make it plain when the
text is the way it is for a reason and should not be messed
with: as a chunk of a document (most likely) or a whole
document. This may or may not produce a fast track.
Specific use cases:
. "boilerplate" that's agreed on in an IETF working
group to apply to all instances of derivative
works (e.g., IANA registration documents, MIBs
etc)
. text referring to other organizations' work -- which
has been carefully phrased and arranged with reps
of that other organization to deal with some
politically sensitive issue.
So -- if the current req reads like fast-tracking, IMO it
is wrong and needs to be fixed.
Which should blow out the requirement for LC announcement
meddling.
Leslie.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
...
often". I'd be much more comfortable with the idea if two
additional things went with it:
(i) The proposal that a document will be fast-tracked in this
way must appear as part of the Last Call announcement so that
the community can comment on the necessity of doing that and on
the editorial readiness for publication "as is" as well as on
the technical substance of the document. I would hope that we
can trust the IESG to either bounce the document or drop the
fast-track plan if there is significant negative feedback on
expedited publication as-is, rather than trying to rewrite the
document themselves.
I think this is a very reasonable requirement. It's
probably out of scope for techspec as such, since it's upstream
of when the draft is actually handed over for editing.
All it needs is one sentence in the Last Call text, and
any comments on that point would need to be considered
just like any other LC comment.
(ii) The decision to fast-track a document in this way must be
appealable by any impacted party in the community including, if
the document is judged unsatisfactory under our presumably-high
publication quality, by the technical publisher themselves.
This seems to be guaranteed by the existing right of appeal
against IESG approvals, which is open to any individual.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
