Info/exptl RFCs [Re: Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking)

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 12:31:18PM -0500, Scott Bradner wrote:
> > Yes, I know.  But the last time I corresponded with them on the
> > subject, they claimed that they had been told, by the IESG, to
> > give these reviews much lower priority than reviews or
> > processing of documents that originated through the IESG.  
> 
> in general the instructions to the RFC Editor (through the IAB) have
> been to prioritize IETF work over independent submissions for
> quite a while
> 
> I think I saw a note in this thread that suggested that the RFC Editor
> should not even be doing non-IETF work (and I am equating IETF working group
> documents and standards track individual submissions (shich go through
> IETF last-call) as "IETF")
> 
> I think that IETF work should have a higher priority but not
> block non-ietf work 

Perhaps we need to seriously reconsider why we need non-IETF
informational RFC's.  On the one hand, I believe that if we do have
them, the IESG MUST give them the same level of review as other IETF
documents, or else they will be used as an end-run around the
standards process.  On the other hand, I occasionally hear claims that
the added burden on the IESG is significant.  If this is true, then
perhaps we should simply not allow non-IETF, inidividual informational
RFC's, or at least give them a very, very, very, low priority.

If an AD wishes to sponsor an individual informational submission,
fine.  But given how easy it is for anyone to publish a document on
the web these days, the argument that we need to spend a lot of
resources allowing individuals to publish documents under the RFC
banner doesn't seem like something that is as important as it might
have been ten or more years ago.

						- Ted