*> > *> The part about "quick opinion" may be the issue *> here. What I suggested was that you send *> the _official_ RFC 3932 check request at that time. *> These are tracked, visible to all ADs, have a set *> deadline when they are handled in the telechat, *> etc. *> *> Jari *>
Well, that would be a significant change in procedure, but if it works for the IESG, I guess it works for us. But... beware of getting what you ask for. Before 3932 was written and the IESG expected to make a serious judgment of technical contents of independent submissions, we used to submit them to the IESG for approval first. Then, the IESG quite correctly complained that they were sometimes given crappy documents to read, since the RFC Editor had not yet taken the passes with the author that we often go through before accepting a document. So, we revised the procedure, to move the IESG review to the end of the independent submission editorial review process. The RFC Editor does the high-level editorial review, gets detailed technical reviews, e.g from the Editorial Board, and makes a decision in favor of publishing BEFORE we bother the IESG with a 3932 review. Quite a few independent submissions never get to the IESG, as a result. If we follow your suggestion, sending them to the IESG at the beginning, we will be back at square 1. Maybe your suggestion is not such a good idea. Been there... Bob Braden _______________________________________________ INDEPENDENT mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
