Hi, On Feb 19, 2026, at 17:40, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > We realized that we did not stress early on the fact the escape clause; this > is now done in the abstract.
it's not really an "escape clause" though - the new section is still intended to be mandatory for all "technical documents", i.e., most docs on the IETF stream. >> This document provides **no** evidence that would motivate why this >> additional >> work is something that needs to be put on all IETF WGs **now**. > We discussed and considered your point in our weekly calls. > We don't believe this is the document goal to document the evidence, with > good & bad examples.This might be a distraction, on top of potential > finger-pointing. Once/if this document is published, that would become > somehow irrelevant. I'm sorry, but I disagree. This document intends to put an enormous burden on all IETF-stream authors of "technical documents" (i.e., most of them) to add a mandatory new section to their documents. It is IMO on this document and the WG that originates it to justify why this IETF-wide burden is warranted. Evidence is not a distraction. If you're worried about staleness, make it an appendix. Why do we need this new section and why do we need it now? Thanks, Lars _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
