Hi Alessandro,
At 01:49 AM 7/30/2011, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Correct, that meaning was derived from the two-step method. Since we
changed our mind on the method, as well as on yam itself, we could as
well change the destiny of that draft and publish it. I think it will
take less than an hour to amend the abstract by replacing that
restriction with an explicative paragraph. The WG and the IESG
already approved that document, so it can go to the RFC editor
directly, AFAICS.
The YAM WG approved the document for IESG processing. The IESG
processed the document and provided feedback to the YAM WG. The IESG
did not approve the publication of the document as a RFC. Amending
the document for publication is not a trivial effort. It will have
to go through IESG Evaluation.
The WG Chairs cannot change the destiny of the document or violate
the working group charter. The Responsible Area Director, the WG
co-chair and the editors of the document will ask me to get a clue if
I suggest publishing the document.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
