[ietf-nntp] Re: ietf-nntp Niggles

ned+ietf-nntp at innosoft.com ned+ietf-nntp at innosoft.com
Fri Dec 12 13:27:23 PST 2003


> In <01L2QD830SII00HOW2 at mauve.mrochek.com> ned+ietf-nntp at innosoft.com writes:

> >However, all this is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. Why? Because the
> >whole point of including the phrase "IESG-approved" is to make IESG approval an
> >*additional* requirement for publication of an NNTP extension specification.
> >Just because this requirement does not normally exist for publication of an
> >experimental extensions doesn't mean a specification can't add it.


> >SMTP extensions are similarly constrained (I suspect this is where the idea
> >came from) and this set of constraints has worked very well in practice.

> OK, I see similar wording in RFC 2821. But I would still have thought that
> "IESG-accepted" conveyed better what actually happens.

The accepted term is "IESG approved".

> Does the IESG ever add "The IESG approves of this" to an Experimental RFC?

As a matter of fact text more or less along these lines was proposed for a
document yesterday.

> Surely what the IESG does in actual practice is to "accept" the RFC (by
> letting the RFD Editor publish it). That seems to mean "this is not (yet)
> a proposed standard, but the IESG is happy for this experiment to go
> ahead".

In actual practice the IESG uses the same approval process that is used
for standards track RFCs. Not using the same process has been tried, and does
not work well.

				Ned



More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list