On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 01:52:00PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: > But this draft does have a formal _state_: "IESG Evaluation :: Revised > ID Needed." It's state seems to be that it has not exactly failed IETF LC (e.g., one IESG member commented that "[i]t is my educated guess there is rough consensus in the IETF to publish this document. However, additional work to document that roughconsensus would be helpful given the strength of the two last call objections." Which proves nothing, except that the process is such that the sponsoring AD and the IESG as a whole are responsible for calling the result of the IETF LC and for insisting on whatever changes are needed for IETF LC comments to be addressed that have to be addressed. Once the IESG makes a decision one can appeal. Nico -- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf