Re: [OSPF] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-12: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> Indeed.  But we'd like to avoid having people make requests to the
>> IESG when they should have done it with I-Ds and IETF Review.  So it'd
>> be nice (non-blocking nice) to have something that explains (very,
>> very briefly) when going directly to the IESG is appropriate.
>
> I think we've been using this format (IETF review or IESG approval)
> for quite a long time. I think the guidance for when things are
> appropriate is more important for things like expert review. In this
> case the IESG is expected to be able to tell applicants to go for IETF
> review where needed. Most of the time the IESG review acts as a safety
> valve anyway; we can sometimes approve an allocation from another SDO,
> for instance, if it makes sense, etc, or an experimental value instead
> of standards track one.
>
> If you want more words, I'd prefer "IETF Review or, under exceptional
> circumstances, IESG Approval". I'm open to other words.

And I'm open to whatever you think is best, which is why I stressed
"non-blocking nice".  If you think it's not important to expand on
this, I accept that answer, with thanks for considering my comment.

b