On 27/02/2015 13:52, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2015, at 3:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 27/02/2015 11:34, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/26/2015 5:23 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
>>>> Those subteams go off on their own for weeks at a time and iterate as needed. And they work without all of the overhead of a formal meeting. They may or may not discuss progress on the list until issues come up.
>>>
>>> There's nothing wrong/out of process with this. The key process
>>> requirement is that they do review & discuss changes with the WG at some
>>> point (which sometimes *is* sometimes a challenge to ensure that it
>>> happens), and certainly no later than when the changes are published.
>>
>> And *any* decision taken that way, right down to the choice to use binary
>> arithmetic, may be challenged and changed by the WG as a whole, and for
>> that matter by the IETF as a whole when it gets to Last Call.
>
> FWIW, that certainly wasn't the case for HTTP/2. The IETF is currently
> very flexible in how chairs are allowed to apply its processes.
Roy, if I had come up with a rational argument why HTTP/2 should have been
based on ternary arithmetic, during IETF Last Call, and the IESG had thought
my argument had merit (and some support in the community), the document
would have got held up until the matter was resolved.
Brian