Subject: Re: Should the RFC Editor publish an RFC in less than 2 months?

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:44:28 -0500 (EST)

Harald sed:
> For the implementors, an I-D + the fact of approval is sufficient. For 
> those who write other documents, it's not - they need the RFC number.

including the folk in other SDOs that want to point to IETF documents

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:17:15 -0500

The discussion of this topic has died down, so it is time for me to 
make a consensus call.  It is quite clear to me that the community 
does not want to delay the publication of RFCs.  Therefore, in this 
note, I am asking the RFC Editor to publish RFCs as soon as Auth48 is complete.

If there is a successful appeal against the approval of an 
Internet-Draft, then the IESG will offer a remedy.  One possible 
remedy is to classify the RFC as Historic, and another possible 
remedy is to progress a new RFC that obsoletes the earlier one and 
contains some appropriate correction.  These remedies are attractive 
because no new processes or procedures are needed.  Another possible 
remedy might be to withdraw the RFC.  This remedy is not as 
attractive because there is no procedure to do it.  However, this 
discussion has raised a few situations where this might be considered 
the appropriate action.

The IAB, in their oversight role, must approve the general policy 
followed by the RFC Editor.  So, I am asking the IAB to consider the 
potential need to withdraw an RFC.  Hopefully this will never be 
needed, but some thought about the way that it would be handled will 
be useful, just in case.

Many thanks,
   Russ Housley
   IETF Chair