Re: Informational RFC-to-bes
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Informational RFC-to-bes
- To: rfc-ed@ISI.EDU
- Subject: Re: Informational RFC-to-bes
- From: Mohsen BANAN <mohsen@neda.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:14:16 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: iesg@ISI.EDU, records@neda.com, Internet Architecture Board <iab@ISI.EDU>
- Content-Length: 4897
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
- In-Reply-To: <9811201836.AA24848@akamai.isi.edu>
- References: <9811201836.AA24848@akamai.isi.edu>
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 98 10:36:48 PST, rfc-ed@ISI.EDU said: rfc-ed> Mohsen, rfc-ed> The RFC Editor has received a request from the IESG for extensions on rfc-ed> the following documents, which include <draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt> rfc-ed> (see message below). I don't have too much problem giving IESG some extra time (say 2 to 4 weeks, but not much more than that) to prepare an IESG note for inclusion in <draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt>, provided that the following are recognized and confirmed now: 1) The procedures and policies that are being followed for <draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt>, a Non-IETF, Non Standards Track, Informational RFC (to be) are those of RFC-2026 (BCP-9). 2) The RFC Editor is an independent entity which is not sub-ordinate to the IESG, adequately equipped with knowledge and experience to determine fitness for publication of Non-IETF, Non Standards Track documents. 3) It is the responsibility of the RFC Editor (Not the IESG's) to determine suitability for publication of <draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt> and publish it in a timely manner. [Of course, The RFC Editor can select any other additional reviewers. But waiting to be advised by the IESG of the suitability is not part of BCP-9.] 4) The purpose and scope of referral of <draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt> to IESG is well defined and limited to addressing possible conflicts and relationships with work in progress in the IETF Working Groups (Section 4.2.3 RFC-2026). 5) The EMSD specification was submitted to the RFC Editor on 10/23/98, more than a month ago. Determination by the RFC Editor for suitability for publication of <draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt> according to RFC-2026 is very obvious in my opinion because: - It is extremely relevant to today's Internet activity. - Meets the technical standard for RFCs, because in addition to having gone through extensive verification steps, it has already been used to produce independent interoperable implementations. - Meets the editorial standard for RFCs. If the RFC Editor for any reason is considering not to publish EMSD as an Informational RFC, I request that the RFC Editor let me know immediately so that I can either correct the problems or persuade the RFC Editor of its fitness. There has already been adequate time to determine the suitability of publication of this spec. Since, the RFC Editor has not determined otherwise, my understanding is that the purpose of IESG's request for an extension is limited to preparation of the IESG note. I do have a serious problem with having to wait months and then be told by the IESG (which has already expressed the intent in producing a competing protocol) that the EMSD protocol should not be published. That simply amounts to censorship of competing ideas. That would be completely wrong. ...Mohsen. SteveCoya> ----- Begin Included Message ----- SteveCoya> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:18:24 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) SteveCoya> From: Steve Coya <scoya@ietf.org> SteveCoya> To: RFC Editor <rfc-ed@ISI.EDU> SteveCoya> cc: iesg@ietf.org SteveCoya> Subject: Re: Informational RFC-to-bes SteveCoya> Joyce and Alegre, SteveCoya> The IESG requests extensions on the following documents: SteveCoya> o Neda's Efficient Mail Submission and Delivery (EMSD) SteveCoya> Protocol Specification Version 1.3 [INFORMATIONAL] SteveCoya> <Draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt> SteveCoya> o NFS Version 2 and Version 3 Security Issues and the NFS SteveCoya> Protocol's Use of RPCSEC_GSS and Kerberos V5 [INFOPRMATIONAL] SteveCoya> <draft-eisler-nfssec-02.txt> SteveCoya> o Building Directories from DNS: Experiences from SteveCoya> WWWSeeker [INFORMATIONAL] SteveCoya> <draft-rfced-info-moats-02.txt> SteveCoya> o Hyper Text Caching Protocol (HTCP/0.0)[EXPERIMENTAL] SteveCoya> <draft-vixie-htcp-proto-03.txt> SteveCoya> o A Method for Transmitting PPP Over Ethernet SteveCoya> (PPPOE) [INFORMATIONAL SteveCoya> <draft-carrel-info-pppoe-03.txt> SteveCoya> o MIME Types for Use with the ISO ILL Protocol [INFORMATIONAL] SteveCoya> <draft-needleman-mime-ill-02.txt> SteveCoya> The IESG agenda for yesterdays teleconference was too full for any SteveCoya> dicussions on the above list of documents. SteveCoya> There is one more IESG teleconference scheduled in December, but as the SteveCoya> agenda will probably be overburdened (as is the case after all IETF SteveCoya> meetings), we request the extension be through January, 1999. SteveCoya> Of course, if the IESG does get the chance to review and discuss these SteveCoya> documents, it will. Just trying to be realistic. SteveCoya> Steve SteveCoya> ----- End Included Message -----
- Replies
- Re: Informational RFC-to-bes, rfc-ed
- Re: Informational RFC-to-bes, rfc-ed
- Prev by Date: re: informational RFC submission
- Next by Date: Publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC
- Prev by thread: Re: Informational RFC-to-bes
- Next by thread: Additional Paragraph For draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt
- Index(es):