To make them all parallel in structure, the first numbered item in
section 3 becomes: "1. The IESG finds no conflict between this
document and IETF work."
In RFC 3932, these numbered items (except the first one, which is
the same until the modification above) begin "The IESG
thinks" During pre-Last-Call-review, I received feedback that "The
IESG finds" was a better. Now, you propose "The IESG
believes". I do believe that the current wording is better than
the original. I'm willing to change it to something else if there
is consensus to do so. What do other reviewers find/think/believe/prefer?
In a different message, John mentioned ""has concluded". That
sounds better as the numbered items are about conclusions
reached. My second preference would be "The IESG believes".
I am happy with "has concluded". The numbered list is changed as follows:
The IESG review of these Independent Stream and IRTF Stream documents
reach one of the following five types of conclusions.
1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this
document and IETF work.
2. The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done
in WG <X>, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.
3. The IESG has concluded that publication is potentially harmful to
the IETF work done in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the
document at this time.
4. The IESG has concluded that this document violates IETF procedures
for <X> and should therefore not be published without IETF review
and IESG approval.
5. The IESG has concluded that this document extends an IETF protocol
in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
published without IETF review and IESG approval.
Russ
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf