On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 03:28:19PM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote: > At 02:11 PM 24-04-2019, Nico Williams wrote: > > What's the problem with holding a BoF? > > It doesn't make sense to ask a person who lacks extensive travel resources > to fly to Canada to hold a BoF about a short draft. You could participate remotely. Seriously, please stop suggesting that your I-D not getting sponsored is a moral or ethical failure on the part of the ADs. You've been given a way forward that fits our publication process. We have a process for publication of Standards-Track and BCP RFCs. That process involves an optional BoF, a WG Last Call, definitely IETF Last Call, and IESG review. It would be strange to skip the BoF and the WG LC steps, and it would be stranger still to have an IETF LC on a draft that has had this much discussion and no other forum for discussing it. An AD sponsoring this I-D as it is might well be grounds for a recall petition! :^/ Nico --
