Russ,
FWIW, I can live with this formulation. I would still prefer to
get rid of "harmful"... see below.
--On Thursday, 13 November, 2008 12:41 -0500 Russ Housley
<housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> wrote:
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."
...
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.
...
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.
I would recommend replacing "is potentially harmful" with
something like "could impede the smooth progress of". That
eliminates the issue of "harm" and replaces it with what is
actually a slightly weaker condition. Phrases like "could
potentially disrupt" would be roughly equivalent, again without
implying that the IETF process is so fragile that the
publication of a document could "harm" it.
But, if the IESG is ok with that implication of fragility and
you prefer to leave "harmful", I can live with it.
...
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf