Individually-submitted proposed RFCs (was: Re: what is a problem)

[John C Klensin]

--On Friday, 29 November, 2002 15:55 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

> 
> 
> --On tirsdag, november 26, 2002 08:35:31 -0500 John C Klensin
> <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
>> I would also note that having to drag the entire IETF into
>> these issues is fairly inefficient.  Also, if the RFC Editor
>> merely misunderstood, e.g., an offhand comment as
>> representing a firm IESG position, it should have been
>> possible to get that straightened out months ago.  I've tried
>> to get people to put a clarification of the intent in this
>> area (whatever it is) on the agenda of two consecutive "RFC
>> Editor lunch" meetings, with no evidence of any success in
>> doing so.  I guess the lunches have just gotten too fine for
>> serious discussions :-(
> 
> in fact the IESG considered making a clarifying query about
> the time required to do RFC Editor review some weeks ago. the
> day before discussing it, we found that there were no
> documents that had been in ISR state at the RFC Editor for
> more than a few days any more, so the problem seemed to be
> moot.

Sigh.  Did you determine that the "no docs in ISR state for more
than a few days" condition was reached because the RFC Editor
had gotten more efficient?  Or is the alternate hypothesis that
people had largely gotten the message and stopped submitting
that way plausible?  You ought to be able to tell by looking at
the queue of such submissions coming from the RFC Editor into
the IESG in comparison to, e.g., 18 months or two years ago.

Also, isn't this type of management of the RFC Editor an IAB
responsibility?  Is the IESG taking on extra work in this area,
thereby creating more overload?

     john