Subject: [Terminology] Comments on draft-knodel-terminology

From: "RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:19:39 -0700

All,

I've been made aware of the discussion of this document on this mailing list.

I am not subscribed to this list (except for the time it takes to send
this email).

Lloyd is correct that the document has been presented to the Independent
Stream Editor requesting publication as an Informational RFC in the
Independent Submission Stream.

I am currently in the process of working with the authors to see whether
we can edit the text to arrive at a form that  consider suitable for
publication. This is a work in progress, and I have recently sent the -06
version out for review by a number of experts in various aspects of the
material.

I am open to receiving other comments and opinions via
[email-masked]. Please note that I will not be monitoring this
list, so while you are welcome to send your emails anywhere you like, the
only ones I will read are those sent to me.

If you do send me a review or comments, please note:
- I may share your thoughts with attribution with the authors unless
  you explicitly request me not to.
- I am not looking for any form of consensus: this is not a process of
  IETF agreement or sign-off, but one of reaching a document that I
  consider ready and appropriate for publication.
- The document clearly (in my opinion) states that it is the opinion
  of the authors and does not purport to be the opinion of the IETF.

For more information about the Independent Submissions process, please see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/ and the referenced RFCs.

Best,
Adrian
-- 
Adrian Farrel (ISE),
[email-masked]