Hi Brian, I like your clarification Roni > -----Original Message----- > From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E > Carpenter > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:40 PM > To: Paul Kyzivat; gen-art@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] What is the criterion for major issue? > > 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
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
