Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > If this isn't standards track because there's no WG consensus for a single > algorithm (and we'll argue over whether a queueing algorithm is a protocol or > not some other time), then I think this WG document should reflect that > consensus and hold back on the recommendations, then, unless you really have WG > consensus for that position. > > If this were an individual submission, it'd be different, but a WG document must > reflect the Working Group as a whole and not just the authors. Yes, well, ensuring that it does is what the WG last call and review process is for, isn't it? Which the draft has been through without anyone taking issue with it. Not even sure what (if any) the proper process for handling this is at this time (the tracker lists the status as "Submitted to IESG for Publication")...? I explained the reasoning behind the current language in a previous email. The only proposal for alternative language has been from Grenville, and as I said I can live with that. However, I'm not terribly inclined to spend more time editing this until I'm sure that it will actually put the issue to rest. -Toke