Hi Murray,
Sorry that I maybe not following the points, may be they were on the list, but the draft needs to have the points of changes. I think section 10 is important, so I can know the changes to RFC7437, this section is already known by the authors but I am not sure why still it is not drafted. For the it is important so I can know the improvements to the procedure in abstract (even the introduction refers to this section 10). Therefore, the draft is not clear and I cannot decide, and it may take a lot of time of the readers to understand without knowing the improvements/changes.
Thanks,
AB
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-MSKSome months ago I started the work of editing a revision to the NomCom procedures (RFC7437bis). We made progress on some points, but seem to have stalled on revising the requirements for qualifying to serve on NomCom.The draft I have recently expired. Is there any interest in taking another run at this now? Alternatively, is it worth publishing what we did accomplish, and leaving that one point for a later attempt?
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-rfc7437bis/