+1 to Dave's suggestion below regarding the name of the draft, as well as Joel's and John's responses to Jari's original question (i.e., retain existing practice regarding IESG notes). Cheers, Andy On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Dave CROCKER<dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> >> The documented rules and practice has long been that with regard to >> Independent Submissions the IESG notes are a request / recommendation to the >> RFC Editor (soon to be ISE), not a statement of what will be included in the >> result. > > ... >> >> Based on having seen a number of IESG notes, and reading the resulting >> text and its inherent tone, I would strongly prefer that IESG notes be an >> exception. > > ... >> >> Thus, I strongly prefer (a). I prefer that such notes be rare, and that >> they remain recommendations to the ISE. > > > +1. > > It might help folks to understand the independent relationship, between the > IETF/IESG and these other RFC streams, if the title of this draft were > changed from "Handling of" to "Assisting with". > > d/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf