Just one follow-on here - I'm seeing postings from others that seem to imply that we need IESG review because that's where the clue is, while Dave is pointing out that the IESG isn't the only source of Internet architecture clue. As I read Dave's note, this suggestion is an invitation for people to develop clue before involving IESG folk, rather than another black hole to absorb IESG time and effort (no matter how noble the effort)... Better for scaling, no? SPencer --- Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote: > > BN> -- might be a bit too optimistic...I don't think it goes > BN> quite far enough in noting that it will probably take > BN> review by members of the small cadre of IETF architecture > BN> experts to be sure that all relevant requirements and > > that's fine. the point of the exercise is to require > specification > authors to pay significant attention to the question. this > actively > creates a dialogue on the issues, rather than hoping that some > clever > architect notices this particular document.