Hi. For the past few plenary meetings, people have gotten up to the mic and complained that we've lost track of what proposed standard is all about. We take too long reviewing documents to make them perfect and would be better off just throwing them out earlier without so much review. I disagree. The point of proposed standard is not to throw a document out there and get comments, although of course we're always willing to listen to comments on our documents. The point of proposed standard is to throw things out there and get implementation experience. If specs are unclear, then we're not going to get implementation experience; we are going to waste time. I've had a lot of experience with a rather unclear spec with some significant problems that managed to make its way to proposed standard: For the past 10 years I have been dealing with problems in Kerberos (RFC 1510). IThis leads me to believe very strongly that catching problems before documents reach PS is worth a fairly high price in time. That said, I realize too much time can be spent on a review. When we're not sure we understand the implications of an issue well enough to know whether it will a be a problem, letting a document go to PS and getting implementation experience can be useful. Similarly, if the review process will never successfully conclude, then having the review early is good. ALso, I am simply saying that waiting for complete reviews is good and the pressure to get things out as PS faster with less review is dangerous. If there are ways to reduce time spent on the reviews without reducing quality, I recognize the value of these efforts.