--On Tuesday, 28 January, 2014 06:58 -0600 Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > If we can give reviewers a clue about what we hope they are > looking for, we're more likely to get the results we hope for. Of course, one of the long-time characteristics of the Independent Submission system is the ability to get tightly-focused reviews from people with relevant experience. Is there any chance that, rather than continuing this discussion on the IETF list to the point of general exhaustion, the IESG and ISE (and maybe some RSAG members) could sit down in London and produce some general guidelines about how to allocate such categories as... (1) Corporate or similar specs, proposed to be documented in the RFC Series for the information of the community. (2) Documents considered in a WG that fail to get traction or that are overtaken by events but that don't get strong opposition within the WG. (3) Documents considered by a WG that don't get approval, either because the WG finds series defects or because it selected a different path or set of alternatives. (4) Documents clearly appropriate for IETF work but for which no existing WG is available and appropriate and for which there is little enough controversy that setting up a WG is not worth the trouble. (5) Documents that are not relevant to the Internet going forward but for which publication appears to have significant historical value. (6) Documents that may be important or useful for the network but that do not directly relate to the sorts of work the IETF is doing (or has the institutional competence to do). (7) Documents that affect IETF process but for which there is no consensus for forming a WG or processing in other ways. (8) Documents whose purpose is to create an IANA registration under "specification required" provisions of some existing protocol. There is probably a longer list, and some of those categories overlap. I'd be opposed to firm rules because, as we usually discover about such things, there are always edge cases and judgment calls. But, if agreement could be reached on some general guidelines and maybe even presented in a plenary to inform the community and get comments, it would probably be a big help to all concerned. john