On Dec 4, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > As originally asked, the question to Ted was about Ted, since it offers > no foundation for challenging Ted on the linkage between the current > proposal and a set of previous ones. We have two specifications that have been approved by the IESG and the IETF as standards that use A+P, and one additional that will be last-called shortly as a standards track document. So if the error in 6346 is just in the text Bob quoted, I agree with Bob. But if Bob is saying that A+P shouldn't be advanced because its technical content is wrong, then we would seem to have a problem. That's the question I wanted to resolve by asking Bob the question I asked.