>There is a reason it did not result in change... there were cogent >arguments against all proposals that were made. I thought that some of the arguments were just arguments against change, and some of the arguments did argue for a change in the experiment but not that the experiment was bad per se. >How DID it get last called, by the way? I evaluated the document, the discussion, the feedback from the stakeholders, and decided that a Last Call would be a good forcing function to make sure we have a real discussion about it. I think the idea has promise. >How will a future implementor know which version is normative? Presumably, the documents will include a note, something like "This document is part of an experiment described in RFCnnnn; unlike all other RFCs, the PDF version of this document is normative". Thanks for pointing out that the experiment description forgot to mention that. >As Joel mentions, this experiment will have a negative impact on >RFC Editor throughput. I didn't quite buy Joel's argument. If the author can generate ASCII from his source that matches the RFC-Editor's edited ASCII, and then generates the PDF from the same source, where does the extra verification come in? >...and the implications need more mature thought. If all we get when discussing on the ietf list is knee-jerk reactions, where is this more mature thought going to come from? Bill _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf