Re: Process on open RFC2518bis issues

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately, this proposal would violate that idea that a WG needs to 
> determine that at least rough consensus exists within the WG for the 
> advancement of a document. It would change to where there was not 
> consensus, then we defaulted to what RFC 2518 says.
> ...

Indeed. As a matter of fact that was my understanding about how revising 
an standards track document should work. If there's no consensus for a 
change, don't do it.

The question then is whether the agreed upon changes represent 
sufficient advance over the previous spec to make publishing it worthwhile.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 20:17:15 UTC