[rfc-i] independent submissions to RFC Editor

John C Klensin john+rfc at jck.com
Thu Jan 13 16:38:07 PST 2005

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:51:45 -0800, Allison Mankin
<mankin at psg.com>, wrote.

>> From the point-of-view of the IETF i-d tracker system (which
>> is
> what decides which drafts live longer than six months), RFC
> Editor Queue state does not occur until after IESG approval.
> States from Publication Requested, through AD Evaluation, on
> to RFC Editor Queue (approved) prevent normal expiration.  The
> tracker doesn't contain RFC Editor independent submissions
> until IESG is asked; then we assign  them a state in the
> database, usually AD Evaluation or IESG Evaluation, which
> assures non-expiration.  When the IESG completes its review (as
> described now in RFC 3932), the draft is placed in the IETF's
> RFC Editor Queue state.  This is the approved state in which
> the draft won't  expire, where it stays until the RFC is
> published.
> Bottom line though:  the database/state table for the i-d
> expiry system is on the IETF side, and we have a bit of
> mismatch when it comes to RFC Editor Queue for the RFC Editor
> independent submissions.

Just so I'm sure I understand this, if I post an I-D and then
hand it off to the RFC Editor as an independent submission, and
it takes them more than six months to review the document and
pass it on to the IESG, then the draft will expire before they
actually do that handoff.  Is that correct?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list