[rfc-i] Technical changes after AUTH48
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Oct 16 08:33:30 PDT 2012
On Oct 16, 2012, at 8:07 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 7:40 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> These are not small changes: a protocol state
>> is added,
> On 10/16/2012 7:55 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > In practice, this is a judgement call by the AD (is the scope of
> > changes reasonable, is the community consensus clear, was this just an
> > oversight, etc.).
> In practice, I'm sure you are right that something like this is treated as a judgement call.
> It shouldn't be.
> Paul's specific text, above, makes this something that is very, very far over the line into obviously requiring being kicked back to the working group.
"kicked back" is less crisp and clear than your normal terminology.
Are you proposing that another revision of the draft needs to be prepared, run by the WG, and taken through IETF Last Call? Or simply that the WG and relevant ADs need to buy in to the proposed changes? Or something else?
More information about the rfc-interest