If every document needs this marking, then that is a matter for headers
and boilerplates. I can understand arguing about how we mark documents.
If our headers and boilerplate are not sufficient, then we should
renegotiate them. I personally think that they are about as good as we
can get.
But the IESG review is for checking for conflicts with IETF work. It is
for reporting such conflicts. It is not a general review for "does the
IETF like this work."
Yours,
Joel
Adam Roach wrote:
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
And given that these are Independent Submissions, they aren't supposed
to be subject to community review.
Given this fact, why is there pushback on the idea that we would
prominently mark the documents to indicate that they have not been
subjected to community review? It seems like the kind of thing that is
of extreme relevance to the reader.
/a
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf