Russ, FWIW, I can live with this formulation. I would still prefer to get rid of "harmful"... see below. --On Thursday, 13 November, 2008 12:41 -0500 Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> To make them all parallel in structure, the first numbered >>> item in section 3 becomes: "1. The IESG finds no conflict >>> between this document and IETF work." >... > I am happy with "has concluded". The numbered list is changed > as follows: > The IESG review of these Independent Stream and IRTF > Stream documents > reach one of the following five types of conclusions. >... > 3. The IESG has concluded that publication is potentially > harmful to > the IETF work done in WG <X> and recommends not > publishing the > document at this time. I would recommend replacing "is potentially harmful" with something like "could impede the smooth progress of". That eliminates the issue of "harm" and replaces it with what is actually a slightly weaker condition. Phrases like "could potentially disrupt" would be roughly equivalent, again without implying that the IETF process is so fragile that the publication of a document could "harm" it. But, if the IESG is ok with that implication of fragility and you prefer to leave "harmful", I can live with it. >... john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf