Hi Richard, I thought I'd already covered this in detail, but a quick glance didn't bring it up for me so I might not have explained this. My apologies. See below. On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 10:19:52AM +0100, Richard Hill wrote: > And please note that the changes I requested to the sheperd write-up with > respect to my statements have not been made (see below), so that write-up > does not correctly reflect what I said during the disussions. The shepherd's write up is how the shepherd communicates to the IESG, and is not a consensus document or a product of the WG. It is instead a process document. My understanding of the point of this document (especially using the new-form template, which is the one I used) is that it is to inform the IESG about the state of the WG's consensus, and in particular to alert them to any areas of particular controversy and difficulty. If the IESG is concerned, they generally follow up with the shepherd to learn more. While it is important that the write-up not misrepresent the state of consensus, it need not provide a lot of detail about what the objections of indviduals are. In this particular case, since during IETF LC you raised your concerns with the way the write-up expressed your objections, your concerns are on the record anyway. There is therefore no reason to alter the write-up, in my opinion. Best regards and many happy returns for 2015, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx