On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:54:35PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Since we're (presumably) trying to write rules that will > work when common sense has failed, it seems prudent to have > a clear path for disputes of an unknown nature. I get the sentiment, and I think it comes from a noble impulse, but I think it's a temptation that should be avoided. If we get to the point where the IESG, the RFC Editor, and the IAB can't among them work out a sensible compromise (because common sense has failed), then we have much bigger problems than getting things published on the Independent Submissions track. Maybe I watched too much _Brazil_ on the weekend, but this all seems to me to be the sort of arrangement that can only lead to harm. Given the number of iterations the draft has been through, and the volume of mail it has attracted, I expect the current form is likely as close to good as it will get (since we still have a fail safe: the IAB can put a pox on all the houses). But I don't believe solving a problem we don't actually have is a good idea. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf