[rfc-i] RFC Editor Queue Contents

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat Jan 15 10:59:57 PST 2005


Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> At 08:48 AM 1/14/2005, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>>Bob Braden wrote:
>>
>>>And your point was...?
>>
>>...that there are documents in the RFC Editor queue under "INDEPENDENT SUBMISSIONS UNDER RFC EDITOR REVIEW" in status ISR which since have been updated, and thus should either removed from the queue (if they are already in IESG processing) or have to re-enter the queue as new submissions.
> 
> 
> Some I-Ds were simply refreshed (no changes other than
> dates/revision number) by the author as they got removed
> of the repository due to 6 mo expiration.  I did this for
> at least one of my individual submissions (with note to RFC
> Editor).  And, I surely hope, that I do not lose my place
> in the queue simple for refreshing the I-D.
> 
> In other cases, it possible (though I am guessing here) that
> the RFC Editor asked the author to make some changes.  I don't
> see why such documents should lose there place in the queue
> either.
> 
> Also, I have no problem allowing authors to make minor editorial
> changes to I-Ds in the queue, as long as they coordinate those
> changes with the RFC Editor and the RFC Editor has no objection.
> This for the simple reason that it might save the RFC Editor
> later on (like during AUTH48).
> 
> Hence, I have to disagree that documents should, in general,
> be removed from the queue if updated.  I believe whether or not
> the updated document should be resubmitted or not is best left to
> the discretion of the RFC Editor.

Kurt,

seems that my report didn't come over as intended :-)

I absolutely agree that it's a good thing if minor fixes can be done 
while the document is sitting in the queue. Is this fact documented 
somewhere? (if it isn't it would be good if it was, and if the entries 
in the Queue document would reflect that somehow).

I was just concerned about things that appeared to me as a out-of-sync 
conditions between RFC-Editor and IETF (*), and to have an automated 
process that points out the discrepancies seemed like a good idea. It 
was neither my intention to step on anybody's toes, nor to have active 
entries removed from the queue that are in front of my own document.

Best regards, Julian


(*) For instance:

draft-haverinen-pppext-eap-sim-13.txt: newer document 
draft-haverinen-pppext-eap-sim-16 in status IESG

The Queue lists this document as:

   2004/04/06-I  draft-arkko-pppext-eap-aka-12.txt
   ISR
   J. Arkko, H. Haverinen
   Extensible Authentication Protocol Method for UMTS Authentication and
   Key Agreement (EAP-AKA)
   Bytes: 183977

...while the IETF I-D Tracker says 
(<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=6702&rfc_flag=0>) 
it has been since submitted to the IESG (AD Thomas Narten), thus listing 
it as waiting for ISR (Independent Submission Review by the RFC Editor) 
seems to me indeed incorrect.


--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list