- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 23:14:24 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> An "IETF review" excludes informational or experimental RFCs in >> the "independent" (RFC-editor) stream, and it also excludes all >> other non-IETF streams. Both proposals exclude W3C standards. > Some (most?) Informational documents do go for IETF Review. AFAIK the IESG can still approve a "document action" without prior IETF Last Call (= IETF review) for informational and experimental RFCs, that was a stunt openSPF proponents weren't aware of when it happened with four controversial letters in RFC 4406 vs. RFC 4408. http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/iesg-statement-01-15-2007.txt is "for selected draft Informational and Experimental documents". How about adding this to a "known traps and pitfalls" page in the IESG wiki, my crystal ball says that there will be a case when an IESG forgets to "select" an I-D running into a "gotcha" appeal ;-) Frank
Received on Monday, 9 June 2008 21:13:40 UTC