On 26/07/18 01:49, Melinda Shore wrote: > In the interest of transparency, I do feel pretty strongly > that documents need to reflect working group consensus, and > that moving them forward without that consensus tends not > to discourage the kind of behavior that got us here in the > first place.
Well said. That, plus the improbability that the sky will fall if the draft is question is not published, convinces me that just letting it linger as an I-D is fine. The text and analysis is not lost, the RFC number is not needed, so don't we have to let it linger? (With apologies to the Cranberries:-) S.
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
