SM,
Thanks for your review and thank you Russ for the edits. I'll just
comment on the one remaining issue:
"3. The IESG finds that publication is harmful to the IETF work done
in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the document at this time."
I don't think that harmful is appropriate here. I gather that the aim
is to prevent circumvention of the IETF process and conflicts with
work being carried out by the Working Group.
It could be phrased as:
The IESG finds that this work is related to IETF work done in WG <X>
and recommends not publishing the document at this time.
The issue is that mere conflict with work in a WG is not a sufficient
reason to recommend against publishing. The IESG needs to make a
judgment call that such publication would actually be harmful to the
standardization process in the WG. For instance, in a recent case we
approved an independent publication even if the document was clearly in
the domain of a WG because we felt the circumstances supported it. You
have to consider a number of aspects, where the WG is in its process,
whether the particular submission is likely to confuse the process, etc.
I don't care so much what words we use to say this, but I would like to
see that the ability to make this judgment call is retained. This is why
I like the current text more than the proposed one above.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf