Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
My approach is to clearly make those changes that are straight forward,
simple end editorial.
For other changes, I need to hear (I guess from Russ) that there
is consensus to make such a change.
Bert, et al,
Something that might help further discussions quite a bit is considering
annotation and re-organization of the document, to clarify some basic
For example, labeling the bits that are based on IETF standards rules versus the
bits that are based on IESG requirements? Equally, what pertains to
documentation standards versus what pertains to technical/protocol issues? The
document has evolved into a possibly disorganized mixture of these and last
month's discussions was challenged to separate issues, I think.
This kind of change would not be modification of the Checklist semantics, but
would add clarity to what is currently there.
Any serious effort to clarify the document in this way is likely to engender
more focused discussion than was possibly earlier, if only by offering some
specific and relevant categorical distinctions.
That discussion is then more likely to produce the kind of input that will help
Russ make those consensus assessments.
Ietf mailing list