Ben,
...
I agree that it is common to speak of doc editors, especially when the
content is derived from many sources, e.g., WG list discussions. In this
case,
the source for the initial doc material was very narrow, and I believe
Eran said that you are the one responsible for making edits to address
issues.
So, forgive my choice of words to describe your role.
As for a public statement wrt ignoring WG consensus (in an implementation)
by a doc "editor" it strikes me as very unusual, if not unique, based on
my 28 years of IETF participation.
But that's not what I'm saying - what I'm saying is I can't say in
advance that this standard is one I want to implement, given that I
don't know what it says yet. I think it would be pretty crazy to say
otherwise.
What you said above is fine. However, it is in contrast to what
yo said at the TRANS meeting with regard to one of the suggested
changes to the doc.
I am not saying this is a _likely_ outcome, just that its a possible one.
It doesn't seem like a point worth dwelling on.
OK, I'll stop.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
