Subject: [Gen-art] For the guidelines, re RFC Editor submissions

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:32:24 +0100

Let me suggest a new guideline:

Drafts being handled as direct submissions to the RFC Editor
are not IETF documents, but they come up for a quick IESG review.
Under RFC 3932 (BCP 92) the IESG has several options, ranging from
"No problem" to "Please do not publish." Formally, the choices are:

    1. The IESG has not found any conflict between this document and IETF
       work.

    2. The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
       <X>, but this does not prevent publishing.

    3. The IESG thinks that publication is harmful to the IETF work done
       in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the document at this time.

    4. The IESG thinks that this document violates IETF procedures for
       <X> and should therefore not be published without IETF review and
       IESG approval.

    5. The IESG thinks that this document extends an IETF protocol in a
       way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
       published without IETF review and IESG approval.

(In the last three cases, the IESG may insist on an IESG Note if the
RFC Editor decides to publish anyway).

Reviews of such documents should be very short, just enough to substantiate
one of the above responses. If the reviewer cares to write more, it
should be sent spontaneously to the RFC Editor.

      Brian

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art