On 6/21/12 1:48 PM, John E Drake wrote:
JD: Process. Draft-narten was written by a group of people with a particular perspective. In particular, they are blissfully unaware of most of the technologies developed by the IETF over the past fifteen years. (Also technologies developed by the IEEE, but I digress.)
Okay, *that's* the basis for an objection, not that it's too soon (although I am grateful to have seen a complaint that the IETF is moving too quickly on something - I may never see another, and I'm cherishing the moment). Look, if the draft is irredeemable or there's a more suitable one available now, say so. My tendency is to go into these things recognizing that drafts are changed *substantially* between the time that one is adopted and the time it enters WG last call, and that's normal, healthy, and desirable. If an editor is unwilling to accept a working group decision on something, they're fired. I just don't think "too soon" is an acceptable or even reasonable criterion for not adopting a document and the "too soon" argument is exceptionally unlikely to lead me to agree with you. You seem to be suggesting that you want a draft to be close to being able to get into WG LC before adopting it. Seriously - what is the problem with the *document* (calling the authors uninformed is not the same thing as saying that the document is flawed), and why is it so serious as to preclude adoption by the working group? Melinda _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
