IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions
RFC 5742

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

Comment (2008-12-04 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I agree with the DISCUSS comments by Cullen and Dan, but will let them hold the DISCUSS votes.

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-04-23)
No email
send info
A bunch of comments. The RFC Editor might catch some of these, but not all. Check carefully because some of them have a subtle effect on the meaning.

1. Abstract
The Abstract contains an unnecessary note to the RFC Editor
   {{{ RFC Editor: Please change "RFC XXXX" to the number assigned to
   this document prior to publication. }}}
There is no reference to "RFC XXXX" in the document.

2. Section 1
   Documents published in streams other than the IETF Stream may not
s/may/might/

3. Section 1
   Once these procedures are fully adopted, the IESG will continue to be
   responsible only for checking for conflicts between the work of the
s/will continue to be responsible only/will be responsible only/

4. Section 2
s/IRTF stream/IRTF Stream/

5. Section 3
s/publications as RFC/publication as RFCs/

6. Section 3
s/types of conclusions/types of conclusion/

7. Section 3
s/for <X>/for WG <X>/

8. General
Would be nice to consistent about "Independent Stream" or "Independent
Submission Stream"

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(David Ward) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund (was Yes, No Objection) No Objection

(Russ Housley) Recuse

(Cullen Jennings) (was No Objection, Discuss) No Record