>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> writes:
Paul> One easy solution to the problem is to not change anything
Paul> in the current IETF or RFC rules. If an RFC has been
Paul> published before the appeal is brought, and that appeal is
Paul> ultimately successful, a new RFC is issued that obsoletes
Paul> the old RFC. That new RFC can essentially be a NULL,
Paul> although hopefully it would have an explanation why an empty
Paul> RFC is obsoleting a non-empty one. That new RFC can also be
Paul> partially populated; for example, if the resolution of the
Paul> appeal is to pull a contentious section or appendix.
I would be happy with this solution.
Paul> Given the extreme rarity of the situation where an appeal
Paul> leads to non-publication or changed publication, it seems
Paul> wasteful to create new rules (and spend lots of time arguing
Paul> about them) when no new rules are needed.
I agree.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf