> I don't see that text either. I suspect it was omitted because > of the possibility of denial of service attacks on getting > standards out (Scott Bradner, a comment on this might be > helpful). I do not recall any discussion on this particular question but tere was a general assumption that common sense would be used so as to not render any appeal moot before it was processed - note that just because someing is not specifically enabled in RFC 2026 should not be read to mean that teh action is specificaly disabled - that can be the case if 2026 says 'you MUST do X" but I see no reason to extend 2026 to automatically block actions the WG (or editor) did not think about unless 2026 dictates a particular path to follow in this case I see nothing in 2026 that says that publication can not or should not be held up Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf