I think Spencer is asking the diff between the older version of this ION (when it was still a draft), and the approved ION. I do not believe there were any substantive changes. This has been operational practice for some time, and has now been published officially as an ION. Jari Russ Housley kirjoitti: > Spencer: > > This document is intended to set expectations. It does not make any > normative changes to RFC 2026. > > Russ > > At 01:08 PM 8/27/2007, Spencer Dawkins wrote: >> Hi, Russ, >> >> A quick comparison with version 02 of this draft (from 2006, >> currently listed in DEAD state) is showing minor typo corrections and >> a million format changes, but the criteria haven't changed in any >> meaningful way. Is this your understanding also? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Spencer >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "IETF Chair" <chair@xxxxxxxx> >> To: "IETF Announcement list" <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:53 AM >> Subject: ION Announcement: DISCUSS Criteria in IESG Review >> >> >>> A new IETF Operational Note (ION) is now available in online: >>> >>> Name: ion-discuss-criteria >>> Title: DISCUSS Criteria in IESG Review >>> URL: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-discuss-criteria.html >>> >>> This ION was approved by the IESG on July 5, 2007. >>> >>> This document describes the role of the 'DISCUSS' position in the IESG >>> review process. It gives some guidance on when a DISCUSS should and >>> should not be issued. It also discusses procedures for DISCUSS >>> resolution. > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf