| |
3.1 WG Submissions
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If
not, what changes would make it so?"
| |
3.1.1 New Item
NONE
3.1.2 Returning Item
NONE
|
3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD
Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable
contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If
not, what changes would make it so?"
| |
3.2.1 New Item
NONE
3.2.2 Returning Item
NONE
|
3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor
The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not
found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The
IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
<X>, but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks
that publication is harmful to work in WG <X> and recommends
not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this
document violates the IETF procedures for <X> and should
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG
approval; 5) The IESG thinks that this document extends an
IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review and should
therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval.
The document shepherd must propose one of these responses in
the Data Tracker note and supply complete text in the IESG
Note portion of the write-up. The Area Director ballot positions
indicate consensus with the response proposed by the
document shepherd.
Other matters may be recorded in comments, and the comments will
be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document.
| |
3.3.1 New Item
3.3.2 Returning Item
NONE
|
|