Anything else should (IMHO) be advice to the RFC Editor and the author, and
not be part of the formal position-taking the IESG makes.
we may be debating termonology
your ID says "The IESG may return five different responses"
that seems to eliminate the possibility of communicating any
such advice
Because in the past, we've seriously bogged down independent publications
because we were debating (with or without the author) whether or not they
should be IETF work.
And we need to stop doing that.
beware of tossing too much away just to "stop doing that"
I still fail to see why this document cannot say that one of the
outcomes could be that the author could agree with the IESG to bring
the work into the IETF - it seems a bit dogmatic to refuse to say that
(and counter to the intent of 2026)
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf