John:
I am pleased to go with:
The IESG has concluded that publication could potentially disrupt the
IETF work done in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the
document at this time.
Thanks for the suggestions.
Russ
At 01:01 PM 11/13/2008, John C Klensin wrote:
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