Re: Text on AD shepherded individual/experimental documents

[Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>]

Given that there isn't a rule in reality, and the requirement that the
document reflect current reality, I guess the vaugest one is best: H2.
H1 is just about as good except for the possible implication that the
IESG can advance a document without the author's consent.  I like TH
from the "what we think the rules should be" point of view.  I agree
with Bert that TN seems to encourage individual submissions too much.

(I don't really know what reality is, since I've never shepherded
an individual submission.  There's a document that was submitted to
the RFC-Editor that I would have been happy to shepherd and it would
[probably] be approved last month or so if I hadn't made the mistake
of asking Scott what to do; Scott said the IESG was constitutionally
incapable of accepting such submissions, which confused me since I
thought I had seen a fair number of them go by on telechats...)

  Bill