On 7 December 2011 18:21, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote:
> We had a long discussion earlier in the year (or was it last year) about > how the drafts should be split. I think it would have been fine to keep > them all in one draft, but that wasn't the working group consensus. > Given that, let's not mess with document splits again and just press to > closure. ACK, I missed or forgot that, no problem. (Checking the archive, apparently my 1st comment was in August: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01261.html>) On 7 December 2011 18:43, SM <[email protected]> wrote: > An almost-ready I-D is not good enough. The WG co-chairs have to > demonstrate to the Responsible AD that the work is moving forward > and that the deliverables are receiving adequate review to be ready > for publication. Well, there are three folks in the IETF where I'd automatically say yes when they agree on an I-D about "BiDi", RTL or LTR or bottom-up top-down boustrophedon. Likewise I'd trust that JohnL and Murray and Scott know what is good for the purposes of "abuse reporting". IOW, I see no advantages to switch this draft to "individual" now. Are you saying that you disagree, or did you only explain how this is supposed to work? -Frank _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
