Brian, > But unfortunately the > IESG still receives a fair number of documents with fairly serious > technical issues and/or serious editorial issues. As long as that is true, > I really don't see how we can take away the IESG's responsibility as the > back stop for quality, especially for cross-area issues. I have not seen anything like a groundswell of suggestions that the IESG-based quality assurrance function be ended and I do not expect to see it, for exactly the reason you cite. However retaining that IESG function does not require that individual ADs continue to have veto. Ralph Drom's recent postings in this regard are particularly cogent. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf