Re: Banan - Re: Publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Banan - Re: Publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC
- To: braden@ISI.EDU
- Subject: Re: Banan - Re: Publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC
- From: Mohsen BANAN <mohsen@neda.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:44:52 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: jkrey@ISI.EDU, iesg@ISI.EDU, iab@ISI.EDU, records@neda.com, "vinton g. cerf" <vcerf@mci.net>
- Content-Length: 4022
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
- In-Reply-To: <199812190026.AA10467@gra.isi.edu>
- References: <199812190026.AA10467@gra.isi.edu>
Mr. Braden, Thank you for the update. >>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 16:26:19 -0800, braden@ISI.EDU said: Braden> Mr. Banan, Braden> You will be happy, I assume, to hear that the RFC Editor staff has been Braden> diligently pursuing the process of making a decision about whether to Braden> publish your document. This has included consultation with relevant Braden> IESG members at the recent IETF meeting. We would have certainly Braden> included you in the discussion if you had attended the IETF meeting. I hope that my not participating at the recent IETF meeting does not impact the process of publication of the EMSD specification as a NON-IETF, Non-standards-track RFC in a negative way. Would you please summarize for me your relevant communications with the IESG members? Numerous times in the past 8 weeks I have asked the RFC Editor to let me know about any concerns with respect to the suitability for publication of the EMSD specifications so that I can address them. No such concerns have been expressed. Nearly 6 weeks ago, during interactions with Keith Moore of IESG, I suggested: >>>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 1998 14:33:58 -0800 (PST), Mohsen BANAN <mohsen@neda.com> said: Mohsen> ... Mohsen> Can we please turn this into a positive and Mohsen> productive interaction? Mohsen> I suggest the following: Mohsen> - Quickly email me your specific comments which you feel Mohsen> I should incorporate. Mohsen> - If there are significant pieces that are missing and that Mohsen> should go in the next rev. of this spec., please email me Mohsen> those. I'll update Appendix D, "FURTHER DEVELOPMENT". Mohsen> - Give me a general feel for the nature of the IESG note Mohsen> that you intend to include as soon as possible so that Mohsen> we can discuss it and make sure that there are no Mohsen> mis-understandings. Mohsen> ... To which he responded: >>>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 1998 02:19:34 -0500, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> said: Keith> ... Keith> Given your tirade on the IETF list, I am very dubious that this is possible. Keith> ... That, of course, was unreasonable and unprofessional. Now that the RFC Editor has had 8 weeks to review the EMSD specifications, I suggest the same again: - Quickly email me your specific concerns and questions so that I can address them and avoid mis-understandings. - Quickly email me your specific comments which you feel I should incorporate in the current revision of the EMSD specification. - If you feel there are significant pieces that are missing and that should go in the next rev. of this spec., please email me those. I'll update Appendix D, "FURTHER DEVELOPMENT". Braden> There is specified a minimum time, but otherwise the time period Braden> is determined by the judgment of the RFC Editor. Taking into Braden> consideration earlier events concerning your document, we have Braden> decided to await a full recommendation from the IESG before Braden> making a final decision on publication. You may be assured Braden> that we share your anxiety to reach a conclusion on this issue. Waiting for the IESG to issue its full recommendation without any deadline constraints is in contradiction with the *timely* requirement of RFC 2026. Particularly since the IESG has publicly stated that review of Non-IETF work has low priority. Further, the 8 months delays caused by the IESG in the case of RFC-2188 which resulted in a last minute -- not expected -- IESG note which claimed a "cursory examination" is a real reference point of which I am afraid of. I think the way forward is quite clear: 1) If the RFC Editor has any concerns about the EMSD specifications, please express them NOW so that I can address those concerns. 2) Define a reasonable time frame for the publication of the EMSD specification so that the IESG review is not open-ended. Respectfully Yours, Mohsen Banan.
- Replies
- Re: Banan - Re: Publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC, braden
- Re: Banan - Re: Publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC, braden
- Prev by Date: Re: Banan - Re: Publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC
- Next by Date: Re: Banan - Re: Publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC
- Prev by thread: Re: Banan - Re: Publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC
- Next by thread: Re: Banan - Re: Publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC
- Index(es):