I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This document appears to change ONLY the IRTF review process -- the IESG long ago quit reviewing the substance of independent documents from a security perspective. Accordingly, the security considerations is correct: The process change described in this memo has no direct bearing on the security of the Internet. That said, I'm puzzled by the continued inclusion of "rejected alternative bypass" as a reason to delay publication. In section 4, this document proposes that readers could be confused by the order of publication of documents. At the same time, this document is removing the mandatory IESG note from independent submissions in favor of a new header (defined in another doc, listed as a normative reference). If that header is sufficient to dispel confusion when it comes to the substantive matters of "we haven't reviewed this", can't it also be relied on to be adequate to avoid confusion arising from publication order? Accordingly, I suggest removing reason 3, as least so far as "rejected alternative bypass" is concerned. -- Sam _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf