Friendly amendment: > This document introduces no new security considerations. It is a process document about changes to the rules for certain corner cases in publishing IETF stream RFCs. It seems to me that this document will potentially improve security. You could add: However, it will prevent publication of IETF stream documents that have not reached rough consensus about their security aspects. Nit: Please be consistent about "stream" vs "Stream". For example, > ...namely the Independent Stream. Or, for research documents, the IRTF stream is inconsistent. Regards Brian Carpenter On 25-Jan-20 07:08, The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the > following document: - 'IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus' > <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> as Best Current > Practice > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2020-02-21. Exceptionally, comments may > be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning > of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > This document proposes that the IETF never publish any IETF stream > RFCs without IETF rough consensus. This updates RFC 2026. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
