Subject: perplexed by an I-D-editor request

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 17:18:52 -0500

I sent in an I-D before Dallas. It was a -00 WG document, and was
appropriately approved, etc., to get into the I-D repository.

One thing I forgot to tell the I-D editor was that this -00 document was
replacing a former individual -01 I-D.

I recently remembered to send a note off to the I-D Editor telling them
that the -00 WG document replaced the -01 individual I-D. I got a note
back from the I-D Editor saying

	The wg chairs should confirm this replacement.

This request seems rather strange to me. The I-D Editor already has the
approved -00 WG in the I-D store; I'm the author of both documents, and
 the titles are the same. Shouldn't the word of the author saying that a
non-WG document has been superceded by a WG document be sufficient? I
can see needing confirmation when documents are downgraded from a WG
document to a non-WG document, but certainly not the other way
around.

Anyway, I was perplexed. Can anyone elucidate?

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 14:55:12 +0200

Hello Tony,

      I hope the following helps:

      Please refer to "Guidelines to Authors Of Internet Drafts" section 7.

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html

"If the document is a new one (i.e., starting with revision -00.txt) and is
submitted as a working group document, the IETF Secretariat needs
permission from the chair(s) of the wg to publish it as a working group
document. Working group chairs should submit this permission at (or close
to) the time that the draft is submitted for posting. To expedite the
process, authors are encouraged to send the document to
"[email-masked]" and at the same time cc: to the chair(s) of the
working group."

Regards,
Menachem Dodge

             Tony Hansen                                                   
             <[email-masked]>                                                
                                                                        To 
             02/04/2006 01:18          Working Group Chairs                
                                       <[email-masked]>                 
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       perplexed by an I-D-editor request  

                                                                           

             Tony Hansen
             [email-masked]

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 15:25:46 -0400

Unfortunately, this does not answer my question. My question is about my
updating the disposition of a non-WG document, so that the tombstone
file would properly point at a WG document.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

[email-masked] wrote:
> Tony Hansen wrote:

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 15:44:10 -0400 (EDT)

the RFC Editor does not process Internet Drafts - that is the IETF 
Secretariat ([email-masked] or [email-masked])

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 11:55:57 +0200

> Anyway, I was perplexed. Can anyone elucidate?

Tony, I think it's a corner case - normally the "replaces draft-hansen-foo"
would have passed without question if included in the original I-D submission.
I guess whoever handled this in the secretariat followed the nearest
applicable procedure.

Hopefully, once we get the much awaited on-line draft submission tool,
all this will just be taken care of by the user interface.

    Brian

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:27:48 -0400

Yup, definitely a corner case. The request kind of took me by surprise;
it certainly wasn't hard to comply.

I'm looking forward to the tool as well. :-)

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Tony, I think it's a corner case - normally the "replaces 
> draft-hansen-foo" would have passed without question if included in
> the original I-D submission. I guess whoever handled this in the
> secretariat followed the nearest applicable procedure.
>