+1 to Dave's suggestion below regarding the name of the draft, as well
as Joel's and John's responses to Jari's original question (i.e.,
retain existing practice regarding IESG notes).
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Dave CROCKER<dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
The documented rules and practice has long been that with regard to
Independent Submissions the IESG notes are a request / recommendation to the
RFC Editor (soon to be ISE), not a statement of what will be included in the
result.
...
Based on having seen a number of IESG notes, and reading the resulting
text and its inherent tone, I would strongly prefer that IESG notes be an
exception.
...
Thus, I strongly prefer (a). I prefer that such notes be rare, and that
they remain recommendations to the ISE.
+1.
It might help folks to understand the independent relationship, between the
IETF/IESG and these other RFC streams, if the title of this draft were
changed from "Handling of" to "Assisting with".
d/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf