> I think we might want to begin thinking of these two functions (technical > review and copy-editing) as two different functions, which are "joined at > the hip" currently, but aren't necessarily so joined forever..... agreed, but if they become disarticulated there will need to be a solid way for the copy-editing/publishing part to relate to the technical review part if the IESG is not there to act as a 2nd pass of technical review. > so I thought > it might mean what it said rather than what its context may seem to > indicate... it is correct that its a true statement that the IESG reviews all RFCs (or actually almost RFCs) pre-publication but rfc 2418 (including sec 8) only deals with WG documents so I do not think that you need a reference to 2418 in this document > Note: The changed IESG review of RFC Editor documents does NOT change the > IESG review for individual submissions to the standards track or individual > submission sponsored by an AD. These get full IESG technical review, as > before. I assumed that was the case also WG informational and experimental documents I trust? Scott