> If there are more than five AUTHORS or EDITORS stream-approval is required.
For reference, I believe this is the first documentation of this requirement.
fewer, but no indication of a formal barrier nor the mechanism for overcoming it.
merely to cite the authorities for the detail.
explicit, if they aren't already.
> but may ask for clarification.
extremely awkward constructions.  Please don't contribute to the problem.
names and contact information?  This needs to be clarified.
nice, but ought not to be sufficient.  Neither should mere unhappiness.
incurring the (significant) costs of making those changes.
not to see what this one will have.
Editor?  While the content is useful, the header label seems odd.
> specific ideas - for those who did not contribute extended text.
> as is often the case with large FAQs or BCPs.
> due to a process issue.
We should fix the process issue rather than add a hack.
comparied with 'for example' and 'that is'.
> Addresses) section at the end of an RFC.
> listed in the first page header of an RFC.
First, the IESG does not dictate RFC Editor rules, except for the IETF stream.
please provide the citation for it?
approval for more than five.
> acted as document editor(s) (e.g.,"Tom Smith, Ed.").