Jari Arkko wrote:
please complain!
That was the complaint, the draft is from an IESG POV, and it
explains how to deal with confused authors claiming that a
single bit is enough to count to three or similar cases.
But it doesn't address the POV of authors who want to get an
evaluation of their I-D. The first step is clear, figure out
the area, if that's unclear ask the General AD.
After that if the area has a "catchall crackpot WG" try to
get a review there, at some point in time ask the Chair(s)
to adopt the I-D. Is that still correct ?
If the area has no catchall crackpot WG try to get reviews
on a related IETF or "other" list, at some point in time ask
one of the ADs.
If that AD agrees to support it there will be a Last Call
or not - depending on the intended status, or the decision
of that AD to "last call" it anyway.
But what if the AD doesn't like it ? Not all drafts try to
introduce ternary bits. Apparently ADs are forced to vote
[Yes] (at least initially) if they "sponsor" a document.
What if they don't like it, but the authors still insist on
an evaluation ? Can they appeal then ? What if the AD
does not like it personally, but admits that it's not as
bad as the famous ternary bits ?
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf