Subject: RE: Allocating RFC numbers at time of approval

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:11:18 +0200

W.r.t.
> 3 - there is no way for the editor to 'spit it back' as being 
>     not ready for publication as it is awaiting some other
>     event that is beyond the rfc editor's control.
>     i.e. the queue is actually two queues - documents
>     that are awaiting processing, and documents that have
>     failed some step in the publication process and are now
>     awaiting some external action beyond the Editor's control.
> 

For example, if a document has normative references to another I-D
that has not yet passed the IESG and so is not yet in the RFC-Ed queue.

Would WGs be OK with a rule that would say that an I-D can 
only be IETF Last Called if all the normative references (to I-Ds)
are also being IETF Last Called at the same time?

It would put the burdon with the WG/authors to ensure and pressure
others (WGs, individuals) that the other documents actually DO get
worked on and DO move forward.

Just wondering. I just see too often that a doc (I-D) gets approved
by IESG with a normative ref to some other I-D that than easily expires
and never gets moving again.

Bert

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:51:25 -0400

>are also being IETF Last Called at the same time?
I don't like this proposed change at all - it is better WG last call the 
document while it is fresh in
 eveyone's mind. Also, it's hard enough to move these documents forward 
with out adding the
additional constraint that they have to be progressed in lock step.

>and never gets moving again.
At some point, the diliquent normative reference must be dealt with. 
That is independent of
whether or not the referring document has been WG last called.