I hadn't thought of it as an appeal, but I do think the current document state should be "Approved, Announcement to be Sent" with a substate of "Revised I-D Needed". If an appeal is what's needed to change that, then... yeah, sure. Barry On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Alexey, > > I believe Julian and Barry's notes constitute an appeal of the Protocol > Action, and I think they're probably right. Please rescind it, publish the > new draft, and give people a bit to review. No need for another formal LC, > but doing this in a note to the RFC Editor isn't kosher. > > pr > > > On 18 Jul 2017, at 13:04, Barry Leiba wrote: > >> I have to agree with Julian here: this is not a change that's >> appropriate to do in an RFC Editor note. The change is probably fine, >> but draft revisions are cheap and it's easy enough to post a revised >> I-D to make sure we can all see the final version in context. >> >> Thanks, >> Barry >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 2017-07-18 10:05, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Julian, >>>> >>>>> On 18 Jul 2017, at 08:52, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2017-07-17 18:33, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> The JSONBIS WG decided to update recommendation on Unicode encoding to >>>>>> be UTF-8. (For details see the RFC Editor's notes in the approval >>>>>> message that will be sent out shortly.) This took a bit of time to >>>>>> debate in the WG, so the document approval took a bit longer than >>>>>> originally expected. >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> Alexey, as the responsible AD >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The last WG mail related to this topic is over 2 months old, and I >>>>> don't >>>>> see any declaration of consensus. >>>>> >>>>> It would be good if the chair would send a summary about what's going >>>>> on >>>>> to the WG mailing list before anything gets finalized. >>>>> >>>>> (I note that >>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis/> has >>>>> been >>>>> saying "Revised ID Needed" for 48 days, and I was under the assumption >>>>> that >>>>> there'd be indeed a revised ID). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I just posted a message on this: this is approved with updated RFC >>>> Editor >>>> notes. See the approval message once it is sent. >>>> ... >>> >>> >>> >>> This is not how it's supposed to work. Please have a new I-D posted and >>> get >>> people to review the changes in context. This is a *very* important piece >>> of >>> standards work - we need to make sure it meets quality standards. >>> >>> From a quick glance at >>> >>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis/writeup/>, I >>> already note that the appendix "Changes from RFC 7159" is now incomplete. >>> >>> Best regards, Julian >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> json mailing list >>> json@xxxxxxxx >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json > > > _______________________________________________ > json mailing list > json@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json