Fwd: Evaluation: draft-klyne-msghdr-registry - Registrationprocedures for message header fields to BCP

[hardie@qualcomm.com]

By the way, the ballot listed me as the proposer, but it
was Ned.  To keep things clean, I'll vote the same way :^).

> Ted Hardie          [ X ]     [   ]       [   ]      [   ]
Two notes:

In section 3.2.1 "An header" should be "A header".

In section 3.4, the draft says:

   Publication in an IESG-approved RFC or other form of Open Standard
   document (per RFC 2026 [1], section 7) is sufficient grounds for
   publication in the permanent registry.

Note that the text IESG-approved suggests a different test from
the one set out above--which would allow Experimental and
Informational RFCs which the IESG may choose to advise the RFC editor
on, but does not exactly "approve".  To avoid the swamp, I'd suggest 
the text here
be shifted to "published RFC" to be in accord with the text above.