Just one bit here that Joel has touched on, but that I want to say clearly:
> The authors need to make the case to the TSVWG (?) that this needs to become > a WG doc, and then we can all scrutinize/optimize it in public. 1. It's absolutely right to say that &WG (be that TSVWG or any other) needs to review a document that's being put forth for IETF consensus. 2. It's absolutely right to say that the comments that result from that review need to be addressed. 3. I believe it is *not* right to say that the document cannot go forward unless &WG accepts it as a working group product. If they do, that's very nice. If they reject it because of fundamental flaws that have not been adequately addressed, then loop back to #2. But if they simply don't want it, that isn't a valid reason to stop the document from progressing. I think we're likely in agreement on this, but, as I say, I want to put it out there clearly. Barry
