Subject: when does the RFC2026 advancement timer start? IESG approval, or publication as an RFC?

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:33:29 -0400

2026 says:

6.2  Advancing in the Standards Track
   ...
   A specification shall remain at the Proposed Standard level for at
   least six (6) months.

but when does the timer start?  with IESG approval, or at publication as an RFC?

					- Bill

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:48:59 +0200

> but when does the timer start?  with IESG approval, or at publication as an RFC?

As far as I can tell it's undefined. In practice it hasn't mattered much,
as efforts to promote specs within the first year are unusual.
My personal feeling is that the spec is a PS at the instant the
IESG Approval message is sent (and these days, it enters the Parking
Area at http://rtg.ietf.org:8080/Test/parking too). This is one of
the many little details that newtrk needs to clarify, if newtrk
retains the 3 stage process of course.

     Brian

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:14:48 -0400

> as efforts to promote specs within the first year are unusual.

Yup.  Secure shell is something of a special case in that the documents
ran into a series of non-technical hurdles on their way to and through
the IESG, giving implementation & deployment of the sshv2 protocol a
multi-year running start. 

> This is one of the many little details that newtrk needs to clarify,
> if newtrk retains the 3 stage process of course.

.. or any process with more than one stage and a minimum soak time per
stage....

					- Bill

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:34:37 +0200

> multi-year running start. 

You can always send a request to your AD 6 months and a day after
IESG approval; the worst the IESG can do is make it wait. I can't speak
for the IESG in advance, but personally I would want to consider the
case immediately if the implementations report looks good.

     Brian

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:15:50 -0400

> but when does the timer start?  with IESG approval, or at publication as

The latter, per the text two paragraphs down:

   These minimum periods are intended to ensure adequate opportunity for
   community review without severely impacting timeliness.  These
   intervals shall be measured from the date of publication of the
   corresponding RFC(s), or, if the action does not result in RFC
   publication, the date of the announcement of the IESG approval of the
   action.

-- Jeff

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:03:25 +0200

>   publication, the date of the announcement of the IESG approval of the

I can read this the other way, if the RFC is still in the queue after 6 months
(not at all impossible, unfortunately).

    Brian

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:59:11 -0400

At Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:03:25 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I can read this the other way, if the RFC is still in the queue
> after 6 months (not at all impossible, unfortunately).

By that reading, being stuck in the RFC Editor queue for over six
months is optimal, since it means the doc can advance without delay.
Somehow I suspect that this is not what the authors of 2026 intended.

I would support defining the clock to start with approval, since
otherwise publication delays can mutate into process issues.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:48:34 +0200

> otherwise publication delays can mutate into process issues.

Personally, I agree, but it seems to be a newtrk issue.

    Brian