> The paragraph below does not belong to me. In my message I was actually > answering it. Right. My mistake. It was Keith's comments I quoted. Sorry 'bout that. Thomas "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Thomas, > The paragraph below does not belong to me. In my message I was actually > answering it. > Regards, > Dan > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@xxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:51 PM > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > Cc: Keith Moore; Barry Leiba; adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx; IETF > > Subject: Re: IESG voting procedures > > > > "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > The only other formal level of review we have are the Last Call > > > comments which, given the volume of documents that get Last Called, > > > amounts to a fairly small and random chance that somebody outside > > > the WG will happen to notice the proposed document action and give > > > the document a thorough review. > > > > ADs can and should arm twist impacted parties to review documents that > > appear to be troubled and for which approval has troubling > > implications. > > > > If an AD can't rally the community (and more specifically parties that > > will be forced to implement or deploy a technology) to oppose a > > problematical document, that speaks volumes to the issue. > > > > Thoma > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf