--On Wednesday, 24 January, 2007 11:26 -0800 Bob Braden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> *> With regard to the "independent" I-D, and noting that I'm
> *> writing as an individual, not as Editor, it seems to me
> that *> this dialog suggests that we should be making the
> document less *> specific, rather than more specific, about
> steps to be followed *> and the order in which they are
> applied. The right way to
>
> Yes, that seems to be the implication. The doc should there
> MUST be a 3932 review, leaving it up to the RFC Editor as to
> when in the process it happens. That seems to cover all cases.
One additional tuning suggestion. If we are going to move
toward posting a notice that a document has gone into RFC Editor
review as an independent submission somewhere, I think we should
allow the IESG to notify the RFC Editor that _they_ are
initiating that review as well. If they never take advantage of
it, nothing is lost. But, again in the interest of efficiency
and flexibility, if an AD happens to notice a document headed
down the "independent" path that seems problematic, in the
spirit of this exchange I don't see any reason to prevent the
IESG from initiating the review if they think that is
appropriate.
john
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
