You seem to be looking for some categorization other than what the
document says. I am unclear why.
The document states clearly that it applies to all Informational and
Experimental documents on the IETF stream. (I suppose I might have
written one for standards track, but it is not needed as the rules for
that are already clear.)
Yours,
Joel
On 1/24/2020 11:25 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:31 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Rob, this document deliberately addresses a very narrow issue that
while
admittedly rare has come up a few times.
It would help if you could describe the documents your draft applies to:
Document Classes Reviewed by the IESG
1) Protocol Actions
2) Document Actions (WG)
3) Document Actions (Individual)
4) Document Actions (from RFC-Editor)
I'm assuming the draft does not apply to #1, since those would not be
Informational or Experimental. If the draft is not intended to apply to
#4 (even as an "end run"), that would be helpful to state.
That leaves #2 or #3. If the draft is concerned about #3, I think it
should state what the IESG is to do if the draft reappears as individual
submission.
If the document is about #2, that would be good to state as well.
thanks,
Rob
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
