review of byte range draft: please reply

As far as I can tell, the current members of the 'range retrieval'
review subgroup (Ari Luotonen and Steve Zilles) are content with 

         draft-luotonen-http-url-byterange-02.txt

and do not plan to do any additional work on the proposal or any
elements of range retrieval that might be in the current HTTP/1.1
draft, or review to see if there are any differences between the
Luotonen draft and the Fielding http/1.1 draft.

Given this situation, there's no particular reason to delay. Thus, I
would like to poll the working group to see if there is consensus to
accept 'draft-luotonen-http-url-byterange-02.txt' as the way in which
range retrieval should be done in HTTP/1.1.

What say you?