Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary: > > Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see > numerous "no objection" or missing ballot responses. I can understand the resource contention when reading drafts brought to the IESG. I would not expect that more than 25% of the IESG members have reviewed a draft (no average) when it is up for ballot. But for _standards_action_, I would probably appreciate if there was a minimum requirement of "yes" ballots (definitely more than just one) based on independently formed opinions, which requires some level of review of a document. According to rfc2026: 4.2.2 Informational An "Informational" specification is published for the general information of the Internet community, and does not represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation. [...] 4.1.1 Proposed Standard [...] A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable. [...] While I'm OK seeing just a single "yes" on the IESG ballot for Informational, I feel quite uncomfortable with a single "yes" for a standards action. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf