Document: draft-klensin-process-july14-02
Reviewer: Kent Crispin
Date: June 8, 2004

Given the premise of the document, and using it as a self-referencing 
bootstrap, it seems reasonable to progress it to experimental.  I do 
have a couple of minor text points, not at all critical:

In accord with the principles of a) defining things before they are
referenced, and b) progressing from mandatory to optional, in step 1 of
the procedure I would move the sentence describing the requirement for
a sunset period toward the beginning of the paragraph.  eg:

  
    1.  An I-D is written that describes what the proposed new or   
    altered procedure is about and how it works.  The I-D must state an
    explicit "sunset" timeout, typically not to exceed one year afte
    adoption.  A statement of what problem it is expected to solve   
    would be desirable, but is not a requirement (the intent is to keep
    the firm requirements for such an experiment as lightweight as
    possible).  Similarly, specific experimental or evaluation criteria
    are very desirable, but not required -- for some of the process  
    changes we anticipate, having the IESG reach a conclusion at the 
    end of the sunset period that the community generally believes   
    things to be better (or worse) will be both adequate and
    sufficient.

And, I think I understand what is meant in the paragraph beginning:

   "The IESG is explicitly authorized to use this mechanism (based on
   Experimental RFCs)..."

But I think it could be worded more clearly.  Is the authorization
based on Experimental RFCs or is the mechanism based on Experimental
RFCs? Is the authorization being given by this proposal?  

The whole issue of authorization, in fact, is perhaps a distraction. 
If I read the document correctly, it would really be the IESG that is
authorizing itself, and that strikes me as a little odd...