- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:03:19 +0200
- To: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
- Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, acl@webdav.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Ted Hardie wrote: > It is not appropriate to make substantive changes to the document at > this stage > of processing. If this is a showstopper issue, you can ask the RFC Editor > to stop processing the document, and get the WG chairs to call for > consensus > on the changes. The draft will then have to go back through at least > IESG processing and possibly IETF last call. IMHO, it's not a substantive change, and it's also not a showstopper. So if there's any doubt, let's not make it. > Continuing to tweak the documents after they have completed processing > is hindering this group's ability to get a stable specification. It is > normal > to find things as people implement and deploy, but if you never issue > a final spec the number of people actually working with the documents > will remain low. Agreed. That's why we want to get the spec published (finally). So if there's any doubt about a particular change, let's not do it. Note that this is the only change that I'm aware that isn't a case of bug fixing or updating references. Eric, would you agree not to do it (after all, you did ask for it), and just add it to a future errata document? Regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 19 April 2004 14:03:54 UTC