John, > But a two-step process with new words and threshold conditions > isn't "current practice"; it is a new idea with all of the > difficulties in getting consensus that Keith identified and all > of the risks of inadvertent change that Sam identified. Trying > to do that as a "current practice, except we ignore some things > that are not and slip a few new ideas in" document seems to me > to be a recipe for disaster or at least for endless wandering in > the weeds. > What it requires is that people who want all their pet changes to go into a draft to simply show some discipline and accept that not everything will be fixed at once. Current practice is a ONE STEP process that is NOT documented. Your and others' obstruction brings us to a place where nothing moves forward and we are left in an ossified state. Rough consensus and running code. Well running code requires that we document what works. Rough consensus requires that people come to agreements, likely through compromises. Right now we have neither. Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf