Re: Reviewing ancient independent submissions

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

Thank you very much for doing this.

> We will be sending detailed messages to each author with our comments.
> Should we CC:  these messages to the IESG, or should we only CC: the
> relevant ADs?  There is also a process question of whether, when we ask
> the author to revise, we should remove the document from the queue
> (and hence from the IESG plate), and resubmit it to the IESG when our
> concerns have been addressed.  Perhaps we need to discuss this with the
> relevant ADs on a case/case basis.

I guess it depends whether we view them as rejected by the rfc-editor
or jointly by the rfc-editor and the iesg.
In the cases that the IESG intends to send a DNP (but hasn't gotten around
to doing so yet) I think it makes sense cc:ing the iesg.

> draft-jl-pcdp-01.txt
> 	"Propagated Content Delivery Protocol"
> 	Submitted 2/13/01
> 	Should be rejected; RFC ED message drafted.

It's been on my plate forever to write the DNP. If you already have
a message ready to send you can go ahead.

  Erik