>> 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?
Hazard to the Internet would be a fundamental flaw that would have to be addressed, of course. > But I don't understand why a protocol extension that would be considered > harmful must be published by the RFC Editor. Nothing considered harmful. I thought I was clear that those things need to be sorted out. I'm just saying that lack of interest from some particular working group isn't a reason to block publication. Serious flaws, or lack of interest from everyone... that's different. Barry
