>>The current term is "IETF Review" (not "IETF Consensus"), and you should >>have a normative reference to RFC 5226 here. > > I will add this.
Thanks. >> It would also be good to >>say when IESG Approval is an appropriate alternative to IETF Review. > > I always interpreted this as either IETF Review or IESG Approval. Indeed. But we'd like to avoid having people make requests to the IESG when they should have done it with I-Ds and IETF Review. So it'd be nice (non-blocking nice) to have something that explains (very, very briefly) when going directly to the IESG is appropriate. b _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
