Jari Arkko wrote: > please complain! That was the complaint, the draft is from an IESG POV, and it explains how to deal with confused authors claiming that a single bit is enough to count to three or similar cases. But it doesn't address the POV of authors who want to get an evaluation of their I-D. The first step is clear, figure out the area, if that's unclear ask the General AD. After that if the area has a "catchall crackpot WG" try to get a review there, at some point in time ask the Chair(s) to adopt the I-D. Is that still correct ? If the area has no catchall crackpot WG try to get reviews on a related IETF or "other" list, at some point in time ask one of the ADs. If that AD agrees to support it there will be a Last Call or not - depending on the intended status, or the decision of that AD to "last call" it anyway. But what if the AD doesn't like it ? Not all drafts try to introduce ternary bits. Apparently ADs are forced to vote [Yes] (at least initially) if they "sponsor" a document. What if they don't like it, but the authors still insist on an evaluation ? Can they appeal then ? What if the AD does not like it personally, but admits that it's not as bad as the famous ternary bits ? Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf