Olaf, John, Pete, I know I have more mail to process and that you've already converged. I just wanted to say something about this: > <draft Proposed rewrite> > > While commonly less mature specifications will be published as > Informational or Experimental RFCs, the IETF may, in > exceptional cases, publish a specification that still contains areas for improvement or > certain uncertainties about whether the best engineering choices are made. In those > cases that fact will be clearly communicated in the document prefereably on the front page > of the RFC e.g. in the introduction or a separate statement. I like it much better than earlier versions in the discussion. The review that we perform for documents is not really just the IESG review. There is a plenty of WG and IETF Last Call and directorate and specialist and AD review going on… Secondly, for a long time the preferred IESG approach to saying something about the document's applicability and status has been to put the words in the document itself, abstract, introduction, separate section…. as opposed to an IESG statement. And we'd really like WGs and authors to be the source of those words, rather than the IESG. Of course there may be special situations that demand an IESG statement, but that is another matter. and Pete wrote later: > I would like to change "IESG" to "IETF" in five places: And given my explanation above, I fully agree with his suggestion. And I see that you seem to have converged on that change, too. Good. Jari