Time required to write down "wisdom" (Re: "Adult supervision")

Keith Moore moore at cs.utk.edu
Wed May 7 18:27:12 CEST 2003


> Call me naive ("ok, you're naive"), but I think your experience, and
> Harald's experience with IAB security considerations guidelines,
> argues for quick Informational RFC publication, followed by BCP
> wrangling if necessary.

I don't think it's going to happen, unless we allow ADs to submit
documents directly to the RFC Editor, and I don't think that would be a
good idea.  basically IESG wants to review nearly everything that's in
line to be published as an RFC, in order to help ensure the quality of
the series, and also as a check against ADs being capricious.  I think
that's reasonable.  but it does mean that there is delay and
overhead associated with RFC publication.  also the fact that RFCs don't
change (which I consider desirable) means that there's greater pressure
to get them right before publication, relative to a web page.

> p.s. I'm asking as an individual, but I think the editor's team would
> like to hear comments on whether documents are "still getting stuck in
> limbo for months at a time".  We're trying to make sure that the
> problems we're listing are still problems, and not hangovers from
> previous problems that went away...

some of these are unavoidable.  a lot of the discussion that went into
this document was necessarily informal.  this was not a WG document, but
it was still necessary to get agreement among people who don't
communicate regularly or in the same circles before publication.
publication without such agreement would have probably hurt IETF-W3C
relations if nothing else.

Keith


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list