Howdy,
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Spencer Dawkins <
spencerdawkins(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
I'm planning to submit -01 with this change:
OLD:
This document allows the IESG additional flexibility in organizing
the IETF's work. It does not make any changes to existing Area
structures, and does not argue that assigning more than two Area
Directors to an Area is an optimal solution in the long run.
NEW:
The change described in this document is intended to allow the
IESG additional flexibility in organizing the IETF's work. It does
not make any changes to existing Area structures, and does
not argue that assigning more than two Area Directors to an
Area is an optimal solution in the long run. In particular, this
change is not intended to increase the size of the IESG
significantly. If several Areas will require more than two Area
Directors, the IESG should consider investigating alternative
ways of organizing the IETF's work.
Please let me know if that's headed the wrong direction.
And thanks for the feedback.
The fourth paragraph of Section 2 ends in a comma. I can't tell if it
should be a period, or if there's a sentence [fragment] missing, or what.
The reference to RFC3777 in Section 2 might better reference
draft-kucherawy-rfc3777bis, which is part way through IETF Last Call,
though that's also something the RFC Editor might pick off down the line
anyway.
Other than that, ship it!
-MSK