Harald Tveit Alvestrand harald at alvestrand.no
Tue Jan 7 08:46:01 CET 2003

--On tirsdag, januar 07, 2003 09:08:21 +0200 john.loughney at nokia.com wrote:

> Harold,
> In the following document,
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-charter-00.txt
> It is stated:
> 4.3 IESG review procedures
>    The IESG review procedure is defined by the IESG.
>    At the time of this writing, the procedure consists of:
>    o  An initial review by the responsible AD, assisted by whatever
>       reviewers the AD wants to bring to bear
>    o  Once the responsible AD is satisfied that the document is worth
>       sponsoring, a review by the entire IESG
>    o  If the IESG has questions or comments, the responsible AD takes
>       the token to resolve these with the authors or WG responsible
>       before taking the (possibly revised) document back to the IESG for
> It might be useful to discuss this in a bit more detail, especially with
> regards what 'review' means (does the IESG review grammer, for example).
> Also, some disucssion is needed to what the relation between IESG
> review and what the RFC editor review is.


the next chapters of the document are supposed to be "a bit more detail".
But it would be wrong to go into too much detail in the "charter" document; 
I'm working on another document called "iesg-procedures" which will 
hopefully be a better place to put the details.

Yes, the IESG has on occasion sent back documents for atrocious abuse of 
the English language, and it's relatively routine to mention examples of 
broken English when the document is sent back for other reasons; how can we 
tell if the conclusion is right if we can't parse the sentence?
But we don't do "English review" per se. Neither does the RFC Editor (much).


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list