* Julian Reschke wrote: >I'm almost with you. > >However, changing the actual definition and adding an additional post LC >would be kind of surprising, wouldn't it? Among the goals of the Internet Standards Process are "openness" and "fairness" and I would find these principles grossly violated if the IESG would approve the document for publication with the proposed changes applied but without another Last Call. With another Last Call and if there is rough consensus in favour of the changes, and that'd include running code, then that's fine with me, regardless of whether an intention to publish an Internet-Draft as RFC is communicated to some obscure W3C mailing list, or who communicates such an intention. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf