RE: Another IESG Charter revision

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Bill answers me:
> >I am still not sure why an info/experimental could not
> >go through an AD. I normally send people to RFC-Editor if
> >they ask me, but I am not sure why that MUST always be
> >done that way.
> 
> I think that's just what RFC 2026 says:
> 
> 4.2.3  Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs
>    
>    Unless they are the result of IETF Working Group action, documents   
>    intended to be published with Experimental or Informational status   
>    should be submitted directly to the RFC Editor.
> ...
>    Documents proposed for Experimental and Informational RFCs by IETF
>    Working Groups go through IESG review.  The review is initiated using
>    the process described in section 6.1.1.
> 
> Since it says "should", it's not absolutely clear to me that it forbids
> the other path, but it's clear that it expresses a preference.
> 
Right. in my understanding of the above, individuals are indeed encourgad
(strongly) to go via RFC-Editor so as to not burdon an AD at will.
However... if an AD sees a document that he/she believes is important,
then for sure he/she can shepherd it through the process. Or at least,
that is how I have been operating.

Bert
>   Bill
>