Just to close the loop on this: the new version of the draft that includes all RFC Editor notes was posted. I will let this be reviewed in the WG for a couple of days and I will reissue the approval announcement for -04. I am also keeping track of further clarifications and these can be done in AUTH48. I will make sure the WG is aware of any changes. On 18/07/2017 12:27, Barry Leiba wrote: > 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