> From: <Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Your suggestion would largely address my concerns related to the timely
> appeal path.
I agree - this proposal:
>> if the ISE receives input from the IESG requesting specific changes to
>> a document ... and the ISE and authors decide to not incorporate those
>> proposed changes, the ISE is required to explain to the IESG, in
>> writing, why not and allow a reasonable period of time for the IESG to
>> respond. If it felt it were necessary, the IESG could then open a
>> further discussion, ask the RSE to mediate, or launch a formal request
>> for IAB review.
is in line with the open 'checks and balances' I like to see, while not
adding additional process to almost all of what the RFC Editor does.
> From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx>
> I still want to see the RFC Editor as a simple journal-like function
Exactly.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf