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

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:26:20 -0400 (EDT)

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

a long-time question - the only date that shows up in the index and
document is the publication date so there is no way to know by looking
at the RFC what the approval time was so in practice the publication
date is the practical one to use

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:25:37 +0200

> date is the practical one to use

If people want this to change, it means changing another long-time
practice by allocating RFC numbers at the time of approval. That way the
RFC index could carry an "approved date" as well as a publication date.

That's a requirement the IETF would have to express very clearly
for it to happen.

     Brian

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:43:39 +0200

> That's a requirement the IETF would have to express very clearly

Nope.

"Approved date" is obvious from the tracker. The RFC Editor has tracker 
access.
Early number allocation might be good, but it's not needed for this purpose.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:26:47 +0200

> Early number allocation might be good, but it's not needed for this 

Strictly logically, that's true, but note that the text of the I-D is
never identical to the text of the RFC, so the sands are shifting until
the RFC is out. I don't find "the draft that later became RFC 9876" to be
a very stable reference for an interop report, whereas "RFC 9876, approved
2005-09-21, published 2006-01-07" would work nicely.

     Brian

    Brian

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:55:09 -0400

Also note that the text of 2026 explicitly says that it will be six
months from publication not approval.