The IESG wrote: > Informational RFC Why not BCP ? Some nits (that could be "DEnglish" on my side): In 3a s/behalf/behalf of/ and s/able support/able to support/. In 3d s/a a consistent/a consistent/ In 3h (b), what's the point of an appeal against a DISCUSS ? Doesn't it turn into ABSTAIN automatically after some time ? From sections 1 and 4 I don't see who initiates this procedure, either the Chairs or the responsible AD. Apparently the Chairs can decide who's document shepherd, but the AD isn't forced to use the procedure and can do the shepherding directly. Why can't the AD simply decide what it's going to be, free to change his or her mind at any time in the lifetime of the WG ? That would also clear a potential deadloop at 2h, returning to 2a "forever". The procedure apparently doesn't work in this case. And at that stage an explicit right to appeal might be useful, or how's the WG supposed to get beyond the blocking AD at this point (2h => 2a loop) ? In (3e) and (3f) the document shepherd checks all last minute changes with the authors (and if possible + necessary the WG). Please add a note to (3e) that this includes any "notes to the RFC editor" added in step (3b). Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf