Scott, >> If anything that is in front of a WG is fair game for a >> consensus call, does it appear to you that a clear >> definition of "what is in front of a WG" could be an >> addition to a revised RFC 2418? > Scott Bradner wrote: > I'd say that is up to the WG chairs I have a related question about this part of RFC 2026: > 6.5.1 Working Group Disputes > An individual (whether a participant in the relevant Working > Group or not) may disagree with a Working Group recommendation > based on his or her belief that either (a) his or her own views > have not been adequately considered by the Working Group, or > (b) the Working Group has made an incorrect technical choice > which places the quality and/or integrity of the Working > Group's product(s) in significant jeopardy. The first issue is > a difficulty with Working Group process; the latter is an > assertion of technical error. These two types of disagreement > are quite different, but both are handled by the same process > of review. What happens if an individual wants to appeal Working Group recommendation based on grounds that do not fit (a) nor (b) above? Michel.