On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 8:34 AM Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, Salz, Rich wrote:
[ speaking as individual only ] [...]
I would say that if the WG didn't think it was important at the time by
forgetting it, it probably is not an "important term", and I can see
this not being fixed in an IETF LC anymore as an acceptable outcome.
Dear Paul: That may be a selective interpretation. It could just as well be that no one remembered to bring this term up during the life of the I-D.
Now, if a simple question to the WG on whether the document should include this term elicits a "no", then of course, the case is closed. On the other hand, if the WG returns a "yes", then it seems that the term should be included in the current revision at the expense of a couple of weeks of delay.
Thanks,
- vijay
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
