Bill,
> I realize my comments are probably out of order, but I offer that were
> the group polled at this time, I think it likely you would find
> uncharacteristically strong consensus in favor of the following two
> questions:
>
> 1. Should section 17 of draft 14 be cut following the second sentence
> ("the group did not reach rough consensus on a single best
> approach.")?
>
> 2. Should the word "recommendation" be removed from the document's
> title, replaced with a more neutral appellation such as "report,"
> "analysis," or "results?"
>
> Perhaps I'm mistaken and I'll happily eat crow if I am, but I think it
> would be unfortunate for all involved if the document proceeded to
> publication on procedural technicalities without these questions
> having ever been asked and answered.
While your comments may be accurate, the RG has been following the usual
process for discussing the document. The RG LC was long ago. That was the
last appropriate milestone for such changes. We then held a consensus check as
to whether the group supported the publication of the document as of the end of
the RG LC. That passed.
We are now in the middle of the IRSG review, where we address comments from the
IRSG. Obviously, if there are other editorial comments (typos, grammar) that
have slipped through, we would still address them, but, per our usual process,
the time for significant changes is passed.
Regards,
Tony
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
