Frank, > What I don't like in your draft is the (apparent) personal veto > right for the AD. Authors (hopefully) have an idea about their > topic, but they don't need to be procedural experts. They don't > need to know what an "area" is, if it has a catchall WG or not, > and who the area directors are if it has no such WG. > The draft says that if you do not know which AD to contact you can talk to the Gen AD first. But any AD or even a fellow IETFer would surely be glad to help with such matters, and guide people towards the right WG / Area / AD. In any case, at the end of the day there is going to be someone who has to decide whether a particular proposal fits the purpose of the WG, the IETF or the RFC series. This someone can be the people in the WG, the sponsoring AD, the RFC Editor depending on what kind of a submission we are talking about, but there is always someone. And as Brian noted, if this someone misuses their power for personal reasons or some other reason, we have an appeals process. I'm not sure there's fundamentally any other way to handle this. And for IETF documents, that someone is just handling the beginning of the process and the proposal has to go through more review from the community. Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf