John Klensin writes:
IMO, the IESG should be spending energy evaluating only those
conditions that require judgment as to appropriateness, i.e.,
the SHOULDs.
The ID-Checklist was (and I believe still IS) intended to do just that.
When a document shepherd does answer the questions of RFC4848 in section
3.1,
then the shepherd (often WG chair) is asked to confirm that he did check
of the document to meet the ID-Checklist (see question 1.g on page 6).
So it happens BEFORE one or many ADs go spend a lot of time on the document.
And it was specifically intended to NOT cause surprised and to prepare the
document in a good shape before being submitted for review by many people
outside the WG.
Bert
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf