On Jun 2, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > Sandy, > > No I had not noticed that the doc completed WGLC, but I guess I was on > vacation at > that time. > > If my co-authors and you and Chirs, and Alvaro agree, I'll suggest that > Richard raise the issue during IETF last call as a way to letting everyone > know that we plan to make this > change before publication as an RFC. OK?
There is no way that I or any other wg chair has any business trying to initiate/stop a IETF Last Call comment! If you are attempting to alert the authors to expect a comment, that's good, but does not need wg chair approval. So not sure what you are asking, but I think you are OK. > > Steve > > p.s. if other docs have failed to be explicit about this that doesn't mean we > can't > do a better job, right? Nope. Might be an indication of what the community has been comfortable with, that's all. For those that are explicit, seeing how they state things might help, especially being consistent. > Also, I'm curious ton know whether RPs are ignoring LFs or > if they assumed the formatting was purely an artifact of RFC publication > constraints. That would indeed be interesting data!! --Sandy, speaking as one of the co-chairs > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
