> So here's my question:
> Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the
> community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
> lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
> community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose
> process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process
> was not properly followed?
The issue isn't the lack of comments but any potential lack of opportunity to
comment. If the document was announced on the list, prefably including
ancillary about changes that have been made, and people chose not to comment
there, then that's fine. But if information about the document wasn't made
available - as is sometimes the case if the document isn't named under the WG -
then that's a problem.
Ned
