At 15:43 +0100 11/21/05, Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:
>Thorough workgroup review adds credibility to the standards track document;
>how the community distinguishes between standards track and informational/
>experimental is somewhat out of scope for this list isn't it?
>
>Not wearing a hat.


Hatless and balding-ly, I'd say that it is a consideration for the proposal.

Given that it seems to me that the current state of the IESG is to
take any remotely DNS related document and pass it by the DNS working
groups. In some cases, if the working groups decide to not take the
topic up, my assumption is that the IESG will refuse to pass the
document. Of course, one can always try to bypass the IESG and go to
the RFC Editor - but the editor will ask the IESG for an opinion. If
the editor is satisfied that it's not an IETF matter, the document
goes on the backburner queue. (The queue of documents handled when
there's nothing else to do. I've heard it from the editor - that
non-IETF/IESG documents are handled when there's no IETF work to do.)
Given that the editor takes so long to handle IETF documents, being
on the backburner queue essentially kills a document.

What that all means is, if it is correct, that if an idea fails to
meet the bar we set with this proposal, then the idea will never be
recorded in an RFC in our careers.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

3 months to the next trip. I guess it's finally time to settle down and
find a grocery store.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: