On Dec 2, 2007 4:55 PM, Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Lixia Zhang wrote:
> > The remedy here may also include the cost to those people who
> > acted on a published RFC in its first 2 months.
>
> Yes, or months earlier, for the case I have in mind more than
> two years, millions of users, and a bunch of implementations.
> Most happily ignoring the eventual "opt-out" remedy, I guess.
Conversely, why not allow a Draft to be published as an RFC in
that six-week period if there are no arguments or appeals, whereas an
appeal could potentially (a) restart the six-week clock, or (b) extend
the period from 42 to the full sixty days?
Though again, it would be changing the rule for less than a 50%
gain in minimum time to publication. I just thought I'd toss the idea
out there.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf