Hiya, On 01/25/2013 04:37 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > If I correctly understand the above, it lies at the root of the > problem I was trying to describe. This is really an experiment > if the effect of deciding we didn't want to make it permanent > was that we were at status quo ante, i.e., as if the experiment > had never been initiated. That is definitely my intention. I'm happy to make it clear in the draft, though I guess I'd assumed it was inherent in the use of 3933. Anyway, yes, I'll add text saying that explicitly. For now, I've put in a note in the working copy. [1] > ... The moment that appeal is filed, the > document in question moves from "fast track" to the slowest > track of all. I think I recall someone sometime hoping there'd be more appeals:-) Yes, if this generated more appeals then that'd be a bad outcome. Would it be more likely? I don't know to be honest but I'd hope not, though perhaps you're right that it sort of paints a target on a draft. I think this is similar to points made about picking suitable drafts/implementations and would be a good thing to say in a wiki rather than put into the draft. I've added a reminder note to do that also in [1]. Thanks, S. [1] http://down.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/misc/draft-farrell-ft-04.txt