- From: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:18:05 -0500
- To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, Keith Moore <moore+iesg@cs.utk.edu>, Patrik FBltstrBm <paf@swip.net>, HTTP Working Group <http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Keith Moore wrote: > > > Yes and no. The applicability statement needs to be revised. But the > > real problem IMO is that state-man-mec is caught in IESG process hell, > > with some current IESG members unhappy with wording that was accepted by > > former IESG members. > > I don't think this is an accurate description of the problem. Fair enough. I'd really like to understand. What *is* the problem that prevents an I-D that was last-called before July, 1998, from advancing to RFC status or being dropped outright? Dave Kristol
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 1999 07:29:01 UTC