GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS OF RFC INDEPENDENT SUBMISSIONS 17 Jan 07 ______________________________________________________________ DISSEMINATION OF REVIEWS All reviews (perhaps in summary) will be shared with the author(s), and many will be shared with the RFC Editorial Board for their information. By default, we will identify you the reviewer to the author. However, you may request reviewer anonymity (except in the case of an unsolicited review). TO REQUEST ANONYMITY, YOU MUST TELL US WHEN YOU SUBMIT THE REVIEW. Reviews may be posted publicly on the RFC Editor web site, with author approval. In this posting, your anonymity will be respected if you requested it. ________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS OF REVIEWS Questions we would like you to answer: A. Is the subject of this document relevant to the RFC Series? Although the series was originally broadly scoped to include any aspect of computer networking, its scope has become centered on the Internet. This includes all Internet protocol technology as well as related hardware issues (e.g., how to run IP over X hardware). More speculative are documents specific to particular link layer or physical layer technologies. Your opinion here will be useful, although the RFC Editor, in consultation with the Editorial Board, will make the final decision. B. Is this document technically competent, as far as you can tell? C. Is this document in reasonable (not necessarily final) editorial shape? D. Are the Abstract and Introduction of this document reasonably clear for those Internet techies who may not be experts in the particular subject matter? Do the Title and Abstract fairly and accurately summarize the contents? E. Does the document make clear up front how the specification does/does not relate to past or current IETF activities? Any additional suggestions that you can make to improve the quality and clarity of the document will be welcomed by us and in most cases will be welcomed by the author(s).