Sorry... Donald Eastlake's comments. Wrong greybeard. On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Brian, that's a good point. I changed that text to address Paul > Kyzivat's comments, and I may have been too strong in that. I could: > > 1. Change it to "It may have been a mistake". > > 2. Remove that last sentence entirely. > > 3. Replace the sentence with something else that I'm happy to have you suggest. > > What do you think? > > Barry > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This paragraph has been considerably changed: >> >>> In particular, working groups will sometimes write in policies such >>> as Standards Action when they develop documents. Later, someone will >>> come to the working group (or to the relevant community, if the >>> working group has since closed) with a simple request to register a >>> new item, and will be met with a feeling that it's not worth doing a >>> Standards-Track RFC for something so trivial. In such cases, it was >>> a mistake for the working group to have set the bar that high. >> >> I object strongly to the last sentence. The fact that a person feels >> it isn't worth the trouble to develop a standards-track document for >> their new idea does not imply that the WG was wrong. It may equally >> be true that the "simple request" is not simple at all in its >> consequences, and absolutely does require standards action, and the WG >> made no mistake whatever. Please see RFC 6709 for a full discussion. >> >> Brian >>