Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-02.txt> (IETF Stream Documents Require IETF Rough Consensus) to Best Current Practice

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

With regard to citing RFC 5742, I will leave it to the judgment of the 
document shepherd and AD as to whether they believe that is called for. 
It seems more distracting than useful to me, but I will act as they direct.

With regard to the Stream typo, that is noted, and will be corrected.

With regard to the "authority" typo, I will correct it, although that 
paragraph will be removed before this becomes an RFC.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/25/2020 3:24 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 12:10 PM Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Rob, I can see no reason why this document would change what is or is
>     not considered an end-run.
> 
> 
> OK. I think the document should cite RFC 5742 in its description of the 
> other streams. Given your statement, I propose this edit:
> 
>     One could argue that there is a need for publishing some documents
>     that the community can not agree on.  However, we have an explicit
>     procedure for such publication, namely the Independent Stream.  Or,
>     for research documents, the IRTF stream, which explicitly publishes
>     many minority opinion Informational RFCs. RFC 5742 describes the
>     IESG procedures for the handling of those streams, and this document
>     introduces no new requirements to those procedures.
> 
> Editorial nits:
> 
> - The capitalization of "Stream" is inconsistent.
> - typo: "the IAB SHOULD use its authorithy"
> 
> thanks,
> Rob
>