I think this is still not clear enough that it describes optional processes
that can be used *if desired* by a working group
e.g. the first sentence of abstract would be better if it said
something like:
This document proposes an optional experimental set of alternative
decision-making processes that can be used in IETF working groups if
working group agrees to their use.
(btw - "proposes" shoudl be chnaged to "describes" before this gets
published)
the same in the introduction:
This document puts forward a set of experimental mechanisms which
for use in that small number of cases.
would be better as:
This document describes a set of optional experimental mechanisms
which could be used by a working group in that small number of cases.
also:
In no way should this experiment or any future BCP for this small
number of cases take precendence over the IETF's normal mode of
operation.
might be better as:
In no way should this experiment or any future BCP for this small
number of cases take precendence over the IETF's normal mode of
operation. Specifically, these procedures are only to be
used when a working group agrees to use them.
section 3 basically says the right thing "working groups should consider
using alternate decision making processes when ..." and
section 3.4 well defines a process -- but that conditionality is not
reflected in the abstract oand introduction
the rest of the ID looks ready to be an experimental RFC to me
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf