John, > Sure. But my point in that area was obviously not clear. Prior > to the announcement of the Last Call, there was no indication to > the community that this document should be considered and > discussed, much less where. Right. We weren't ready for a very wide discussion with the earlier revision, it had too many obvious problems. I hope the right discussion forum is now clear. > There is no working group charter, > no history of open discussion, and so on. And _that_ calls for > a four-week Last Call, not two weeks. > But its Informational. My read of RFC 2026 says that the 4 week case applies to Standards Track only. In any case, if it turns out that we get too little feedback or there's significant controversy, I'm sure Brian will consider what that means for successful end of the last call... Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf