> Indeed. But we'd like to avoid having people make requests to the > IESG when they should have done it with I-Ds and IETF Review. So it'd > be nice (non-blocking nice) to have something that explains (very, > very briefly) when going directly to the IESG is appropriate.
I think we’ve been using this format (IETF review or IESG approval) for quite a long time. I think the guidance for when things are appropriate is more important for things like expert review. In this case the IESG is expected to be able to tell applicants to go for IETF review where needed. Most of the time the IESG review acts as a safety valve anyway; we can sometimes approve an allocation from another SDO, for instance, if it makes sense, etc, or an experimental value instead of standards track one. If you want more words, I’d prefer “IETF Review or, under exceptional circumstances, IESG Approval”. I’m open to other words. Jari
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
