...
I understand the reasoning (I can stretch that far).
But the desired outcome is for any violation of the transition
procedure to violate the CP. Right?
agreed.
As you said, this follows from the first step of the procedure,
which is to update the alg document with the transition timeline,
thereby indirectly updating the CP with the transition. Subsequent
violation of the transition procedure would therefore violate the CP.
right.
But if the violation of the transition procedure is to fall at the
first hurdle - to fail to update the alg document with the
transition timeline, then any subsequent violation of the procedure
would no longer violate the CP, even indirectly.
Right?
yes, but that is a procedural hurdle that, presumably, is within the
purview of the WG and the IESG. So I didn't think it belonged in the
doc. But, we both agree that a more explicit statement of how this
doc relates to the CP is needed.
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
