Glen Zorn wrote: > Thank you for your authoritative reading of WG consensus. If the > problems (and their solutions were so obvious, why were they present in > the draft at all?
No draft is perfect on first writing. Even the IESG may offer feedback to improve a document. > I could have sworn that the process WRT a WG Draft was that it was > changed only by direction of the Chair(s) as a result of the > determination of WG consensus, rather than at the whim of the editor. > Maybe a different process? I have no problem with a document being updated in WGLC due to feedback on the list. This has happened with other WG's, too. > Apparently I was unclear: the specific text to which I am objecting is > -10. All of it. Curious. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
