--On Thursday, May 01, 2014 09:22 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
<hallam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> And to the other conversations, we are talking about draft-
> here. And that isn't the same as standard. In fact one of the
> requirements for being granted standard would be to come up
> with answers to these issues.
I recommend a careful reading of RFC 4846 before doing so, but,
with the understanding that there is no consensus process
involved and this list is definitely the wrong place to have, or
even copy, the discussion, if someone had well-thought-out
opinions as to whether that document should be published in the
Independent Stream and/or what completeness conditions should be
imposed on it, the ISE is typically willing to accept
unsolicited reviews. Similarly, if someone felt like generating
a well-reasoned critique, posting it as an I-D, and asking that
the ISE consider publication, I assume such a request would at
least be considered.
I am definitely not speaking for Nevil or predicting his
reactions, but I would suggest one caution: RFC 4846 and
established practice gives the ISE far more flexibility (and,
indeed, license) to ignore or discard repetition, ranting,
strongly-stated opinions that are not grounded in solid
references or generally-accepted facts, etc., than, e.g., IESG
members have in response to IETF Last Call comments. So, if
anyone decides to go that route, I'd suggest that they do so
with as high a level of professionalism as they can manage.
best,
john