On 31/03/2016 02:49, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > [Changing the subject line] > > On 3/29/16 5:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >> Hi Roni, and gen-art (other cc's dropped) >> >> So, a gen-art question to the gen-art reviewers :-) >> >> What is the criterion for major issue? > > I have also wondered about this. > So far I have just been "winging" it, but I continue to wonder each time.
IMHO, you should put yourself in the General AD's shoes. Would you definitely hold up the document for this (i.e. a solid DISCUSS)? Would publishing it as-is be actively misleading or harmful? Then it's major. Would you possibly place a DISCUSS, which you would very likely drop as soon as an author or the sponsoring AD explained the point or said "sure, we'll fix that"? Or would you simply issue a COMMENT and ballot No Objection? Then it's minor. Are you just saving some work for the RFC Editor? Then it's a nit. YMMV, as all these are judgment calls in the end. Should we add something on this point to the guidelines at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki ? Brian _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
