Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> If this is true, he cannot post on IETF mailing lists and
> should be banned of "Acknowledgments" sections as well!

The IESG Note in RFC 5242 is perfectly clear, with a length
of 11 lines it reaches a third of the IESG Note size used
in RFCs 4405, 4407, 4407, and 4408.  For a shorter IESG Note
I'd support an appeal or recall petition, but 11 lines ought
to be good enough for everybody.  

It would be completely unjustfied to count empty lines, and
then claim that 12 of 38 is less than a third, even if the
38 lines don't include a page header added by the RFC-editor
without consent of the IESG, let alone any IETF Last Call.

 Frank

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf