With regard to citing RFC 5742, I will leave it to the judgment of the
document shepherd and AD as to whether they believe that is called for.
It seems more distracting than useful to me, but I will act as they direct.
With regard to the Stream typo, that is noted, and will be corrected.
With regard to the "authority" typo, I will correct it, although that
paragraph will be removed before this becomes an RFC.
Yours,
Joel
On 1/25/2020 3:24 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 12:10 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Rob, I can see no reason why this document would change what is or is
not considered an end-run.
OK. I think the document should cite RFC 5742 in its description of the
other streams. Given your statement, I propose this edit:
One could argue that there is a need for publishing some documents
that the community can not agree on. However, we have an explicit
procedure for such publication, namely the Independent Stream. Or,
for research documents, the IRTF stream, which explicitly publishes
many minority opinion Informational RFCs. RFC 5742 describes the
IESG procedures for the handling of those streams, and this document
introduces no new requirements to those procedures.
Editorial nits:
- The capitalization of "Stream" is inconsistent.
- typo: "the IAB SHOULD use its authorithy"
thanks,
Rob
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
