Thanks to everybody for discussion. I've sent a note to spec-prod list, which you may find at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2012JanMar/0000.html, and I'll notify you of the responses that I expect to receive before Thursday. Mykyta Yevstifeyev 2012/1/1 Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@xxxxxxx>: > * 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 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf