Apologies for the pedanticism, but there are some frequently confused items in here (and the terminology of https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/iesg-discuss-criteria/ has since evolved). On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 08:25:32PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:31 PM Joel M. Halpern <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) This is "Individual submission to an AD" (i.e., IETF-stream AD-sponsored), as distinct from "Independent submission to the ISE" (i.e., ISE-stream). > 4) Document Actions (from RFC-Editor) The current terminology used for these (e.g., at https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/) is to talk of a "(RFC 5742) conflict-review response" for the "IRTF and Independent Submission stream documents" (i.e., item 3.4 on the linked IESG agenda). The "Document Actions (From RFC-Editor)" terminology used in the IESG statement on discuss-criteria seems confusing at least to me, so I'm not sad to see it go. > 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. I assume you mean Independent Submission here (i.e., via ISE). > If the document is about #2, that would be good to state as well. In light of the above, it seems clear that this draft is proposing changes to (2) and (3). -Ben -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
