Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- To: iesg@ISI.EDU
- Subject: Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- From: Mohsen BANAN <mohsen@neda.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:10:16 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>, jkrey@ISI.EDU, rfc-ed@ISI.EDU, records@neda.com
- Content-Length: 4108
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
- In-Reply-To: <199901221533.KAA26856@spot.cs.utk.edu>
- References: <199901220739.XAA11085@rostam.neda.com><199901221533.KAA26856@spot.cs.utk.edu>
The IESG, By now, the IESG has had more than *15 weeks* to review the EMSD specification. More than a month ago, on January 9, 1999, the RFC Editor notified you of their approval for publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC and requested for the IESG paragraph. The two week timeout for draft-rfced-info-banan-01.txt expired on February 9, 1999. RFC-Editor> This RFC-to-be was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as RFC-Editor> Informational: draft-rfced-info-banan-01.txt RFC-Editor> Two week timeout is initiated (9 February 1999). As you know, from my perspective, the IESG delays have already been excessive and unreasonable. In response to my previous message with the same subject, >>>>> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:33:39 -0500, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> said: Keith> The first draft of the IESG note has been circulated to the IESG. Keith> Various IESG members have commented on it. The next draft will not Keith> be done until early next week. IESG is having a meeting next Keith> Thursday, and the EMSD note will likely be discussed at that Keith> meeting. It remains to be seen whether IESG will approve that Keith> note or whether it will require another round of edits. Since the RFC Editor has already approved the publication of EMSD Informational RFC we are just waiting for an IESG note with a specific and clear scope and purpose. However, as far as I know, nearly 3 weeks after that message, the "IESG note" to be included with the EMSD Informational RFC has not been produced yet. At this point, no further delays are acceptable or justifiable. After all that we have gone through in the case of this Informational RFC, at this point, the IESG has the RESPONSIBILITY of doing its part towards the completion of publication of this NON IETF, NON STANDARDS TRACK, Informational RFC in a timely manner. In this case, what the IESG has done (and is continuing to do) amounts to CENSORSHIP of competition. As early as a Nov. 7, 1998 in a message to Keith Moore, I said. Mohsen> Don't abuse your authority. Mohsen> Don't delay the publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC. Yet, in practice that is exactly what appears to have happened. I understand that the IESG has publicly stated that review of non IETF work is not a high priority for the IESG. However, the IESG is also under the obligation of fulfilling the *timely* requirement of RFC 2026. Clearly, *15 weeks* is not timely. No additional delays are acceptable. Even as volunteers, you have your DUTIES and your RESPONSIBILITIES. At this point, the IESG simply needs to complete the "IESG note" and send it to the RFC-Editor so that it can be included in the EMSD Informational RFC when it gets published. The IESG should consider this work item urgent and important. Anything short of that amounts to negligence and irresponsibility. If the "IESG Note" is not complete by February 15th, I'll request from the RFC Editor that the EMSD Informational RFC be published without the note. After all, - What is the RFC Editor expected to do when the IESG does not review the document in a reasonable period of time? Which is the same question that I asked nearly two years ago in the case of RFC-2188. In that case, IESG caused a *7 months* delay. As I have repeatedly said before, I have the simple goal of completing the publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC as soon as possible. I much prefer not to have to adopt a stronger tone with IESG. Now that after extensive deliberations the RFC Editor has concluded that EMSD should be published, let's work together and complete its publication and move on. Please complete and send to the RFC Editor the IESG Note to be included with this Informational RFC when it gets published soon. The purpose and scope of that note is well defined in RFC 2026. Please, let's work together and publish this Informational RFC. That way we can all save a lot of time and energy. Respectfully Yours, ...Mohsen --- Parallel experimentation is the hallmark of the Internet. -- Vinton Cerf
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- From: Patrik Fältström <paf@swip.net>
- Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
- Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- From: Mohsen BANAN <mohsen@neda.com>
- Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- Replies
- IESG's Review of EMSD Specification, Mohsen BANAN
- Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification, Keith Moore
- Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification, Keith Moore
- Prev by Date: Edits -- Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- Next by Date: Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- Prev by thread: Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- Next by thread: Re: IESG's Review of EMSD Specification
- Index(es):