Subject: I-D no action period

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 07:39:39 -0700

I would like to propose the introduction of a "no action" period
for Internet Drafts.  Upon (re)publication of an I-D, no action
(except removal) would be allowed upon the I-D for a short
period of time (two weeks?).  No LAST CALLs, no submission
to AD, IESG, RFC-Editor, etc.  This would allow the community a
brief opportunity to point out any flaws in the revisions to
responsible parties desiring to take action upon the I-D.  I
know of a number of cases where immediate action was taken
upon I-Ds with significant flaws which were pointed out within
days of the publication.   A "no action" period would allow a
small window of last minute community review.

	Kurt

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:12:27 -0400

> I would like to propose the introduction of a "no action" period for
> Internet Drafts.  Upon (re)publication of an I-D, no action (except
> removal) would be allowed upon the I-D for a short period of time
> (two weeks?).  No LAST CALLs, no submission to AD, IESG, RFC-Editor,
> etc.  
	[trimmed...]
> A "no action" period would allow a small window of last minute
> community review. 

Isn't that what a last call is?  A two-week window for last minute
community review?

					- Bill

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:06:52 -0400

I'm certainly opposed to such a rule.  There is already too much
rigidity in the IETF rules.  It is frequently useful to post an
updated version, initiate a Last Call, etc., very shortly after an I-D
is published.

In some cases, an I-D is posted to include and summarize the final
changes decided on by Last Call or IESG review and is then immediately
approved.  There is very rarely a problem in this.  If there is, the
RFC-editor can fix some types of errors, the IESG can reverse itself,
and ultimately new RFCs can be issued to obsolere and replace thsoe
with problems.

No document produced by the IETF is perfect. But there is also a heavy
penalty in timliness to be paid for endless polishing.  The currently
system seems reasonable to me and, if anything, leans too far towards
providing review cycles and delays.

The POISED working group is established to discuss such procedure
questions and I have set the reply-to header of this message to point
to its mailing list.

Thanks,
Donald

From:  "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Message-Id:  <[email-masked]>
Date:  Sat, 29 Jul 2000 07:39:39 -0700
To:  [email-masked]

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 21:42:07 -0700

>Isn't that what a last call is?  A two-week window for last minute

The current process does not provide any mechanism for review
by the community of any changes made based upon LAST CALL comments.
That is, an individual makes comments which prompts changes.
The community, let alone this individual, often are not given any
opportunity to review the changes made.