>>>>> "Vernon" == Vernon Schryver <vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Vernon> If the advocates for this I-D were really trying to follow
Vernon> the IETF's processes, they would have taken one of the
Vernon> suggestions for the next step and temporarily (or
Vernon> permanently) retired from the field. It is clear that
Vernon> there is no consensus to advance this document. Even its
Vernon> authors have admitted that by talking about a new version.
No, currently this draft is in Ted's hands. It makes no sense for
people to withdraw drafts or to make any hasty decisions at all. In a
situation where you get a lot of last call comments it is best for the
pinvolved parties to get together and decide what to do next. Correct
action is more important than prompt action.
Many people suggested ways of moving forward. Deciding which of these
is best will require some time. The process will work much better if
the authors help make this decision than if the unilaterally withdraw
their draft or do something like that.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf