That's kind of hard to comment on given that I'm not exactly sure what "solution" you're suggesting. If it's changing the namespace URI, I'd be annoyed to do so given the facts that it's currently already being used in the wild and that you're the only one, as far as I can recall, who has actually ever complained about it. That said, however, "very annoyed" does not equal "unwilling". If the IESG determines it to be a problem, then changing the namespace is fine. I trust their judgement.
- James Robert Sayre wrote: > ...Even the draft's author > acknowledges that it is a valid concern, though he probably doesn't > have the same solution in mind. >
