I'm very happy with that text. Please forget my proposal on the IANA part.
Danny McPherson sent a few editorial comments after my submission as well.
I will incorporate both sets of feedback in an update once the submission window opens again.
--Olaf
For reference the remaining item:
OLD:
o Documents considered by IETF Working Groups but not standardized.
While many documents of this type are published via the IESG
approval path (see RFC 3932, Section 1 [RFC3932]), the independent
submission path has traditionally been open to them. Because of
their intimate connection to the IETF Standards Process and WG
activites and the consequent sensitivity to exact statements of
relationships and to timing, there is reason to believe that all
such documents should be published only at IESG request. In any
event, these documents are published for the historical record.
NEW:
o Documents considered by IETF Working Groups but not standardized.
While many documents of this type are still published in the IETF
document stream [RFC2026,draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines] as
Informational or Experimental RFCs, the independent submission
path has traditionally been open to them as well. However, because
of their intimate connection to the IETF Standards Process
and WG activites and the consequent sensitivity to exact statements of
relationships and to timing, there is reason to believe that such
documents should normally be published via the IETF stream. In
any event, these documents are published for the historical record.
----------------------------------------------------------- Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ INDEPENDENT mailing list INDEPENDENT at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent