Hello Andrew, [The aside] > This is yet another process document that, no matter how > much the text protests otherwise, will probably be used as a club in > some future contentious WG discussion to try to beat opponents into > submission. At the moment we don't seem to be able to move for fear of clubbing WGs at some future unspecified time. And at the same time we have WG chairs saying "please give us a bit of general guidance on some topics". So we might handle this by putting it on a wiki instead, but I think the community like to be able to read about "stuff". And our mode of publication (to date) has been the RFC not the wiki. I'm in general in favor of encouraging people to have some backbone if they feel they are being clubbed, and not to cry out that they might be clubbed in the future. I think I would have a different view if the I-D was proposing rules and regulations without fully examining the consequences. [And the technical bit] > In section 5.2, there is this: > > a single, strong specification. The detailed discussions to merge > are better held in a design team than amidst the dynamics of an open > working group mailing list. > > I think it would be better to alter that to "…to merge are often > better held…". That is a good suggestion, IMHO. Thanks, Adrian