On Fri, 7 May 2004, The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering Group > to consider the following document: > > - 'The IESG and RFC Editor documents: Procedures ' > <draft-iesg-rfced-documents-01.txt> as a BCP > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the > iesg@xxxxxxxx or ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2004-06-04. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-rfced-documents-01.txt A good document. Go for it. A few minor comments below. The only thing I felt a bit fuzzy about was the statement: The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any purpose, and in particular notes that it has not had IETF review for such things as security, congestion control or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. ==> now that we get down to talking about enumerating the important topics that are being reviewed in the documents, should this list be expanded or shrinked appropriately? I'm fine with as it is, but I have a feeling that those 3 items are not representative of the IETF review, and if we list specific review subjects, the list should probably be longer.. editorial --------- This document gives the IESG's procedures for handling documents submitted for RFC publication via the RFC Editor, subsequent to the ==> s/gives/describes/ RFC 3710 [3] section 5.2.2 describes the spring 2003 review process; ==> was that really spring 2003? The RFC was published in 2004. The last two cases are included for the case where a document attempts to do things (such as URI scheme definition) that require ==> s/URI scheme definition/to define a URI scheme/ ? References ==> split these; 1-2 normative (or just 1), 3) to informational. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf