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 KristolReceived on Wednesday, 17 March 1999 07:29:01 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:06 UTC