>> 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.
And I'm open to whatever you think is best, which is why I stressed "non-blocking nice". If you think it's not important to expand on this, I accept that answer, with thanks for considering my comment. b _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
