--On Thursday, 06 January, 2005 07:42 -0800 Peter Constable
<petercon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> But Ned's concerns are legitimate, I think. I'd say they are
> not necessarily blocking issues for this draft, because I
> think a possible outcome of discussion is to characterize them
> as concerns about outstanding issues that need to be solved
> rather than as concerns over the draft itself; but I do think
> they are valid concerns that deserve attention.
Peter, as soon as we get to "valid concerns that deserve
attention", we remove the proposed document, I believe, as a
candidate for BCP. We don't have any provision in the BCP rules
for pushing a document forward that identifies valid concerns
and other loose ends rather than having those issues resolved
sufficiently that we can talk about a "practice". So it means
that either
* The document needs to be withdrawn, these (and other)
concerns sorted out, and a new document produced that
addresses them.
or
* The document needs to be recast into Proposed Standard
or Experimental form, because we do have ways, there, to
say "these are known outstanding issues that deserve
attention"
That, of course, doesn't solve some other strategic/ positioning
issues with it; see my recent other note.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf