--On Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12:58 -0700 SM <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Dave, > At 09:41 11-08-10, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> My note, here, isn't about that. It's a 'process' question, >> meant mostly for academic consideration: >> >> Is this the sort of change that is appropriate for going >> from Draft to Full? > > The short answer is no. > >> I would have thought that it was too technical and >> substantive and that, at the least, the doc would have to >> cycle at, perhaps, Draft. > > It would have to be recycled to Proposed. If there isn't any > new requirements, one could argue that this is a narrow change > to address a specific problem identified during deployment. Interesting. I completely disagree. Suggesting more attention to a tradeoff and making that tradeoff more clear is a change in general guidance, not a change in conformance rules or other normative requirements (much less a "new requirement"). If changes in general guidance are not acceptable, then the only changes that can be made between Draft and Full are editorial. That is, of course, independent of whether consensus could be reached about the change. best, john
