> Anything else should (IMHO) be advice to the RFC Editor and the author, and > not be part of the formal position-taking the IESG makes. we may be debating termonology your ID says "The IESG may return five different responses" that seems to eliminate the possibility of communicating any such advice > Because in the past, we've seriously bogged down independent publications > because we were debating (with or without the author) whether or not they > should be IETF work. > And we need to stop doing that. beware of tossing too much away just to "stop doing that" I still fail to see why this document cannot say that one of the outcomes could be that the author could agree with the IESG to bring the work into the IETF - it seems a bit dogmatic to refuse to say that (and counter to the intent of 2026) Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf