I appreciate people's concerns about how this was handled; let me explain my view of it a bit more. In his complaint, Phill re-raised an issue he had raised during last call (and during earlier discussion). That all happened well before the IESG got the document. I interpreted his complaint, then, as questioning the decisions I made, rather than the publication decision that the IESG made. Now, how to handle that: RFC 2026 Section 6.5.1 covers complaints about working group issues, but says nothing about handling non-working group, AD-sponsored stuff. I decided that the right path was to go back to basic principles: 1. 2026 does seem to guide us to start all complaints with a review by the person or body that made the decision, a "please reconsider" request. 2. We should treat all complaints seriously, and make an honest effort to understand the complaint and address it fairly. I believe we did both of those, and that handling this, at the first level, as a complaint about a decision I made (I accepted the document for AD sponsorship without having been diligent enoughin my consideration, or I made a judgment about consensus during last call without having adequately considered the issues Phill raised... you pick; they amount to the same thing). For timing, I considered the IESG approval announcement as when the clock started, because that was when it became publicly clear that Phill's concern was not going to be further addressed. It's perhaps a valid interpretation that this should have been handled purely as a process appeal, only involving RFC 2026 Section 6.5.2. For the reasons above, I didn't, and don't interpret it that way. What do we call this? Is it an "appeal"? Well, 2026 doesn't use the word "appeal" until the "disagreement" (the word 2026 uses) is taken to the full IESG. I think that's a distinction with no substance. Phill wanted his issue addressed, and *he* called it an appeal. I'm happy to call it an appeal as well, and see no value in quibbling about how we refer to it. In any case, he was asking us to reconsider a decision. He was asked to start that by coming to me. He did, and I did. I think that was right, and not in any way "odd". By handling it this way, we also have not closed off any other avenues. Appeal to the IESG is still an open option -- clearly, I think it's not the best way at this point, and I appreciate that Phill is willing to accept my response. What's said in the plenary is up to Jari, but I certainly encourage him to list this complaint in the plenary, to call it an appeal and to summarise my response to it. Now: can we let this discussion settle down? We had a complaint from a participant that was taken seriously. The decision it involved was reconsidered and responded to. (And let's please move technical discussion about binary encodings to another subject thread.) Thanks, everyone. Barry