 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SM,Thanks for your review and thank you Russ for the edits. I'll just comment on the one remaining issue:
"3. The IESG finds that publication is harmful to the IETF work done in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the document at this time."I don't think that harmful is appropriate here. I gather that the aim is to prevent circumvention of the IETF process and conflicts with work being carried out by the Working Group.It could be phrased as: The IESG finds that this work is related to IETF work done in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the document at this time.
The issue is that mere conflict with work in a WG is not a sufficient reason to recommend against publishing. The IESG needs to make a judgment call that such publication would actually be harmful to the standardization process in the WG. For instance, in a recent case we approved an independent publication even if the document was clearly in the domain of a WG because we felt the circumstances supported it. You have to consider a number of aspects, where the WG is in its process, whether the particular submission is likely to confuse the process, etc.
I don't care so much what words we use to say this, but I would like to see that the ability to make this judgment call is retained. This is why I like the current text more than the proposed one above.
Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.