Since I'm about to post an update to this based on the thread last fall, I'll start here:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:36 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:36 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So I’m notice that a single-author AD-sponsored BCP revision is getting a relatively lot amount of pushback on one particular area from a number of very experienced IETFers (to be clear: other than me).
Perhaps an AD sponsoring a BCP written by another AD is not the best way forward for something that has such a broad impact.
Do you have a proposal for a venue where you feel this should be handled? Maybe you're thinking GENDISPATCH? I don't think this warrants its own working group, but weirder things have happened.
I can't find it now, but I think I saw someone indicate that this sort of processing isn't all that unusual for documents of this nature.
I also wouldn't characterize this thread overall as "pushback", but rather a lot of background and reasonable feedback, some of which has resulted in changes to the text. I also wouldn't say it has consensus yet, but so goes the process.
-MSK
