SM wrote: > Quoting RFC 2555: Hopefully we'll get a 5555 next year :-) > The Tao has an air of formality in some places. Mostly limited to appendix B, though. > In Section 1: > > "An Internet Draft's life cycle begins when the author(s) > submit the document as an individual submission" > That may lead to some confusion with independent submissions. > It may be better to have: > "An Internet Draft's life cycle begins when the author(s) > submit the document as a personal draft; it may become a > Working Group draft Dunno, independent drafts are non-IETF by definition, using one adjective "individual" everywhere at least doesn't add to any existing confusion about "individual" vs. "independent" drafts. Example: > In Section 3.1: > > "There are several persons who can respond to a received > review. If the document is an individual document" > I suggest using the same term as the RFC Editor. > > There are several persons who can respond to a received > review. If the document is an independent submission But the guidelines are for IETF drafts, that's either WG draft or individual, but not independent. Ignoring IAB drafts and IRTF drafts for the moment, anyway not the audience for these guidelines. Frank _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf