> Why would we do this for technical typos and other things that > are essentially trivial? I'd expect an AD to enter WG discussion > when raising fundamental issues, but not for straightforward > points. > > This is what should, IMHO, be the PROTO shepherd's job to decide > about, as well as consolidating issues when more than one AD > (or other reviewer) finds the same thing. What Brian is saying here is that there is a fair amount of noise in some of these cases. A fairly typical situation is that an AD raises a concern by placing a Discuss but then in the telechat we talk about whether under the circumstances that is really an issue. Quite often we end up clearing the Discuss. In any case, it could be premature to start a thread in the WG mailing list on "this protocol must do X" before we are sure that we actually want to demand that. A good shepherd manages this and takes the discussion to the WG when its ready. But in case they forget and/or to assist them, I wouldn't mind automatic posting of the IESG review results a a day or two after the telechat to the WG list. Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf