> 1. The offer primarily serves to suggest that the document has questionable > purpose or clarity.
Offering to make the document a Proposed Standard, on the standards track, suggests that it's questionable? I fail to see that. > 3. As negotiating model's go, it is counter-productive to open with a > fall-back offer. There is no sense in which this is a "fall-back". I see it as a *better* mechanism for this document than BCP, if the IESG decides that it agrees. The "experiment" is seeing if the IESG agrees, and the fall-back is BCP. Barry _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
