I think we might want to begin thinking of these two functions (technical
review and copy-editing) as two different functions, which are "joined at
the hip" currently, but aren't necessarily so joined forever.....
agreed, but if they become disarticulated there will need to be
a solid way for the copy-editing/publishing part to relate to the
technical review part if the IESG is not there to act as a 2nd pass
of technical review.
so I thought
it might mean what it said rather than what its context may seem to
it is correct that its a true statement that the IESG reviews all RFCs (or
actually almost RFCs) pre-publication but rfc 2418 (including sec 8)
only deals with WG documents so I do not think that you need a reference
to 2418 in this document
Note: The changed IESG review of RFC Editor documents does NOT change the
IESG review for individual submissions to the standards track or individual
submission sponsored by an AD. These get full IESG technical review, as
I assumed that was the case
also WG informational and experimental documents I trust?