On 3/18/2014 11:18 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
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.
Hazard to the Internet?
At the least, it would presumably have a very high hurdle for being
standards-track.
But I don't understand why a protocol extension that would be considered
harmful must be published by the RFC Editor.
Joe
