[rfc-i] New NEWS item on RFC Editor web site
braden at ISI.EDU
Thu Oct 6 12:55:15 PDT 2005
*> Could I suggest one other (seemingly small) change? In the above
*> example, the simple-event-filter document is actually not being worked
*> on (yet) and won't be until the NOT-RECIEVED reference becomes
*> available. Thus, I think it would be more clear/accurate to give it a
*> different state name, since it is not actually being actively
That is a good idea... in fact, so good that we have already implemented
it in our internal bookkeeping but not yet propagated it out into the
queue. (Which will be trivial to do now that it is generated!).
We introduced a new state REF-MISS for documents held up in this way.
Should be coming to a theatre near you, real soon.
*> Indeed, it would be more clear to have "EDIT" reserved for document
*> that are actively being worked on, and use a different name for
*> documents that are in the queue, but for which processing has not
*> actually begun.
It turns out to be a harder, and a lot more book-keeping, to
keep this state information reliably. We are doing our darndest
to bring down the backlog, which is the real problem here.
Anyway, it is not clear that this information, if available, would
really do you any good. Once we get to processing a document in
EDIT state, it generally takes from a few days to a couple of
weeks to process it, depending upon how long and complex it is,
and whether questions have to go back to the authors.
Bob Braden for the RFC Editor
More information about the rfc-interest