Changing DISALLOWED (was Re: Reserved general punctuation)

[Debbie Garside]

Hi John

Thanks for the insight into IETF procedures but I was merely going by my
experience of RFC's which never seem to be published within the timescale
originally set within the Charter.

That said, I do take your point that we could amend in haste and regret at
leisure.  I just think that some sort of mechanism for updating according to
"Mark's 3" should be incorporated unless we can realistically say that an
RFC can be delivered within the timescales you specify - in which case I
would be happy.

Best regards

Debbie
PS sorry I didn't get back to you earlier... have a bad cold.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of John C Klensin
> Sent: 02 May 2008 17:07
> To: debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk; 'Patrik F?ltstr?m'; 'Mark Davis'
> Cc: phoffman at imc.org; 'Vint Cerf'; idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Subject: RE: Changing DISALLOWED (was Re: Reserved general
> punctuation)
>
>
>
> --On Friday, 02 May, 2008 15:46 +0100 Debbie Garside
> <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Patrik wrote:
> >
> > [re 3]
> >>> Can not happen (yet) as we have no such procedure in place.
> >>> And if we
> > have, and require for example a 4 week comment period, what is the
> > real difference between this and issuing a new RFC?
> >
> > Realistically, about 6-12 months, as a minimum, is the difference.
>
> Debbie,
>
> I would be very concerned about anything in this area that
> had to be done hastily.  Speaking much more generally than
> about IDNs, an attitude that haste is more important than
> careful consideration and review of possible side-effects has
> often been a source of problems for standards work in the
> IETF, ISO, and elsewhere.
>
> That said, if there were general consensus that fast
> publication were really important and especially if the
> relevant document is short and to the point, we have
> mechanisms for getting RFCs published in around 60 days (that
> limit is imposed by provisions
> for appeals).   In recent months, the _normal_ publication
> interval after sign off has been fairly close to that 60 day
> window anyway, with a number of documents being edited,
> checked and approved for publication (separate steps from
> approval of the substance for Standards Track documents --
> unlike some ISO components, we do not permit approval of a
> document with a more-or-less-specific list of proposed
> changes followed by publication without anyone but the
> editors looking at the final
> text) and then simply held for the remainder of the 60 days
> for the appeal-window timer to run out.
>
> So, wherever your "about 6-12 months, as a minimum" inference
> comes from, it is not a necessary property of IETF procedures
> or current practices as I understand them.
>
> regards,
>      john
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
>
>